national grid grid ny...the relationship between national grid and jaco is functioning well, with...

National Grid New York Upstate Refrigerator and Freezer Recycling Energy Efficiency Program

Process Evaluation Report—Final

August 12, 2011

Refrigerator and Freezer Recycling Program Process Evaluation Final Report. August 12, 2011

National Grid New York Upstate Refrigerator and Freezer Recycling Energy Efficiency Program

Process Evaluation Report—Final

August 12, 2011

Copyright © 2011 Tetra Tech, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Prepared for: National Grid

Tetra Tech

6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300 | Madison, WI 53719

Tel 608.316.3700 | Fax 608.661.5181

www.tetratech.com

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Program and Evaluation Overview 1-1 1.2 Summary of Key Findings 1-1 1.3 Conclusion and Recommendations 1-3

2. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Program Background 2-1 2.2 Program Tracking 2-2

2.2.1 Program Objectives and Achievements To-date 2-2 2.2.2 Program Logic Model 2-3

2.3 Evaluation Methodology 2-5 2.4 Evaluation Methodology 2-6

2.4.1 Sampling 2-6 2.4.2 Data Collection 2-6

2.5 Report Organization 2-7

3. Process Evaluation Findings .......................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Program Administration and Oversight 3-1 3.2 Program Goals and Participation 3-2 3.3 Sources of Program Information 3-4 3.4 Appliance Characteristics 3-6 3.5 Rebates 3-13 3.6 Program Satisfaction 3-14 3.7 Energy Awareness 3-16 3.8 Demographics 3-20

4. Impact Evaluation Findings ............................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Summary of Free Ridership Estimates 4-1 4.2 Disposition of Appliances in Absence of the Program 4-1 4.3 Detailed Impact Related Question Analysis 4-5 4.4 Initial Estimation of Free Ridership Rates 4-5

4.4.1 Initial Free Ridership Estimates 4-6 4.4.2 Primary versus Secondary Refrigerators—Free Ridership and Program

Influence 4-7 4.4.3 Replaced versus Not Replaced Freezers—Free Ridership and Program

Influence 4-7

5. Summary And Recommendations .................................................................. 5-1

APPENDIX A: Program Process Flow Map ..................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B: Program Staff Interview Guide ................................................ B-1

APPENDIX C: Participant Survey Instrument ................................................. C-1

APPENDIX D: Participant Survey Cooperation Rate ...................................... D-1

iv


APPENDIX E: National Grid Marketing Materials ........................................... E-1

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. National Grid New York State Refrigerator and Freezer Recycling Program Logic Model (upstate) ................................................................................................................................................ 2-4

Figure 3-1. Number of Appliances Recycled by JACO per Month in 2010 ........................................... 3-3

Figure 3-2. Method of Hearing of Recycling Program (n=399) ............................................................. 3-5

Figure 3-3. Respondents Satisfied with Various Program Aspects (8 or higher on a scale of 0 to 10) .. 3-15

Figure 3-4. More, Same, Or Less Satisfied with National Grid (n=400) .............................................. 3-16

Figure 3-5. Attitudes on Energy Efficiency .......................................................................................... 3-18

Figure 3-6. Home System that Requires Most Energy Usage (n = 393) ............................................ 3-20

Figure 4-1. Likely Disposition of Refrigerators in Absence of Program (n=272) ................................... 4-2

Figure 4-2. Likely Disposition of Freezers in Absence of Program (n=133) ......................................... 4-3

Figure 4-3. Determination of Free Ridership Status .............................................................................. 4-5

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 2-1. 2010/2011 Net Achieved Savings and Net Savings Goal .................................................... 2-2

Table 2-2. Recycling Orders by Climate Zone ...................................................................................... 2-3

Table 2-3. Key Researchable Issues .................................................................................................... 2-5

Table 3-1. 2010/2011 Net Achieved Savings and Net Savings Goal .................................................... 3-3

Table 3-2. Preferred Methods of Program Communication – All Participants (n = 389) ....................... 3-6

Table 3-3. Age of Recycled Appliance .................................................................................................. 3-7

Table 3-4. Condition of Appliance Compared To Age........................................................................... 3-8

Table 3-5. Frequency Appliance Was Plugged In ................................................................................. 3-9

Table 3-6. Location of Appliance Prior to Recycling ............................................................................. 3-9

Table 3-7. Location of Refrigerator Compared to Age (n=243) ........................................................... 3-10

v


Table 3-8. Use of Refrigerator by Area ............................................................................................... 3-11

Table 3-9. Motivation to Participate in Program .................................................................................. 3-12

Table 3-10. Quantity of Appliances in Home ....................................................................................... 3-13

Table 3-11. Average Price Willing to Pay to Remove Appliance ........................................................ 3-13

Table 3-12. Mean Level of Importance of Program Aspect ................................................................ 3-14

Table 3-13. Ownership of ENERGY STAR Appliances ...................................................................... 3-17

Table 3-14. Attitudes on Energy Efficiency Compared to Income (Means). ....................................... 3-19

Table 3-15. Adopted Energy Efficient Practices (n=403) .................................................................... 3-20

Table 3-16. Household Characteristics ............................................................................................... 3-21

Table 4-1. Free Ridership Estimates ..................................................................................................... 4-1

Table 4-2. Replaced Recycled Appliance ............................................................................................. 4-4

Table 4-3. Free Ridership Estimates ..................................................................................................... 4-7

Table 4-4. Refrigerator Free Ridership Estimates by Use and Replacement ....................................... 4-7

Table 4-5. Freezer Free Ridership Estimates by Replacement ............................................................ 4-8

Table D-1. Participant Cooperation Rate .............................................................................................. D-1

1-1


1. EX ECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the findings and recommendations resulting from the 2010 process

evaluation of National Grid‘s Refrigerator-Freezer Recycling Program in upstate New York. We also

report key impact evaluation findings, such as free ridership. This report is one of a series of

process evaluation reports of National Grid‘s energy efficiency programs in New York.

1.1 PROGRAM AND EVALUATION OVERVIEW

The Refrigerator-Freezer Recycling Program (―the Recycling Program‖) is designed to encourage

households to retire and recycle working secondary, inefficient refrigerators and freezers. The

program offers customers an incentive of $30 to recycle old working second refrigerators and

freezers, plus free pick-up. National Grid‘s vendor, JACO Environmental (JACO), removes the

appliances from participating customers‘ homes, and then safely dismantles and recycles the

appliance in an environmentally responsible manner. In order to participate, customers need to

schedule the free pick-up time, as well as complete the $30 incentive rebate form.

To qualify, customers must be a National Grid electric customer in upstate New York and own the

units for pick-up. In addition, the appliance must be:

Between ten and 30 cubic feet, using inside measurements

For refrigerators, the unit must be a secondary refrigerator and not the primary refrigerator

Clean, empty, and in working order at the time of pick-up

Accessible with a clear path for removal by the contractor.

Each participating household is limited to recycling two units. The refrigerator or freezer must be

picked up at a National Grid electric service address.

The 2010 program goal was to remove 13,850 appliances from the residential market. Through

the end of December 2010, the program reports recycling 7,430 appliances which was short of

the participant goal, but about 87 percent of the net energy savings goal. Utilities are held to their

savings and not participant goals. A later than anticipated program launch (July 2010) is cited by

program staff as the main reason why the program did not achieve its goals. Additionally, the New

York State Public Service Commission ruled that 2010 and 2011 savings goals would be

combined together, so the strong six months of Program operation gives every indication that the

combined 2010/2011 savings goal will be met.

As part of the process evaluation, Tetra Tech conducted in-depth interviews with five National Grid

and JACO management staff, as well as 405 quantitative participant surveys in late 2010.

1.2 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

The relationship between National Grid and JACO is functioning well, with open and frequent

communications. Both JACO and National Grid staff reported satisfaction with the frequency and

quality of communications between the two entities. Staff from both sides reported that they felt

their relationship was one of mutual respect and appreciation.

1. Executive Summary

1-2


JACO‘s tracking system and dashboard are effective and useful. National Grid staff reported

satisfaction with the usefulness of JACO‘s dashboard as well as its ease of use. When pulling data

for reference or sampling, the evaluation team found the data to be well tracked, generally easy to

understand, and complete in that there are no gaps in the data or missing information. The only

area in which the JACO sample data did not match the survey data was in classifying the recycled

refrigerator as a primary vs. secondary appliance.

A late start to the program launch is the main barrier to the program meeting its goals. The delay

in starting program activities was due to an Order by the Public Service Commission of New York to

wait until NYSERDA had completed their program. Appliance pick-up did not begin until July, giving

program staff less than half the time originally allocated to operate the program in 2010. It is

important to note that despite this late start, the program achieved 87 percent of its net savings

goal in a six-month period. However, program goals changed near the end of 2010 to combine

2010 and 2011 goals together.

Almost 20 percent of the customers that sign up to participate in the program, change or cancel

their pickup date or drop out of the program. This 20 percent rate, which includes change or

cancellation of pickup date or not showing up for the appointment, is similar to other utility

programs operated by JACO in other states. The no-show rate for the program is about four

percent, with JACO not charging for these customers. JACO is in the process of both investigating

reasons why customers drop out of the program. As of February 2011, JACO contacted customers

who canceled their appointments or were no-shows in an attempt to re-recruit them.

Participants are very highly satisfied with the program, and with National Grid as a whole. Very few

participants are dissatisfied or displeased with any aspect of the program; participants are

especially pleased with their interactions with implementation staff. Ninety-seven percent of

participants rated their satisfaction with the program overall as an eight or higher on a zero to ten

scale, with zero being not at all satisfied and ten being very satisfied

The most important aspect of the program to customers is the free pick-up of the old appliance.

The importance of this element on the participant‘s decision to participate in the program was

rated on average a 9.0 (on a zero to ten scale). For comparison, the program‘s rebate was rated a

5.8 and the information provided by the program was rated a 6.8.

Marketing campaigns have been successful in reaching customers, and participants are

spreading word of the program to their family and friends. Participants reported hearing of the

program through many channels, including newspaper and television advertisements, bill inserts,

and word-of-mouth (which can also be taken as an indicator of high customer satisfaction). Nearly

all participants (all but two out of 405 respondents) indicated that they would recommend the

program to others.

Although they are not allowed per current program requirements, primary refrigerators are being

recycled through the program. Twenty-two percent of participants reported that their refrigerator

was a primary refrigerator. Notably, primary refrigerator pick-up is the highest in the Syracuse area

(29 percent of refrigerators picked up there are primary) as compared to Buffalo (17 percent) and

Albany (15 percent). However, the JACO dashboard only reported seven percent primary

refrigerators in 2010 and nine percent in 2011.

Almost all customers report that their recycled appliance was in working condition. Although nearly

all worked at the time of pick-up per eligibility criteria, there were some units that had not been

used in the 12 months prior to pick-up. Freezer participants were significantly more likely than


1-3


refrigerator participants were to indicate that their appliance had been unplugged over the

previous year (93 percent of refrigerators were plugged in, compared to 74 percent of freezers).

Free ridership rates for the program are in line with other similar appliance recycling programs. An

analysis of responses to a series of questions designed to characterize what actions participants

would have taken in the absence of the program resulted in a free ridership rate of 37 percent for

refrigerators and 35 percent for freezers. These findings are in line with other appliance recycling

programs. The free ridership numbers include customers whose appliances are unplugged, which

would be double counting this customer segment since this circumstance was accounted for in

the Consolidated Technical Manual, October 15, 2010.

Demographically, nearly one-half of participating households are comprised of older adults without

children living in the home. Those over 65 years of age are more likely to prefer hearing about the

program through newspaper advertisements or direct mailings, and less likely to prefer receiving

program information through emails. However, the sample might be biased toward older adults

since they tend to participate in more phone surveys than younger segments of the population.

1.3 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overall, National Grid‘s Refrigerator-Freezer Recycling is functioning well. High satisfaction levels

among program staff and participants indicate that the program is doing a good job serving its

customer base, and program processes appear to generally function quite well.

Below are recommendations for retaining the high quality of the program, as well as several

recommendations to resolve any current issues or problems.

More strictly control pick-up of the secondary appliances. Currently, the program does not allow

primary refrigerators to be recycled, yet per participant self-report, 22 percent of refrigerators are

primary. While JACO‘s call center used a script to screen out customers who wanted to recycle a

primary refrigerator as ineligible, drivers found that seven percent and nine percent in 2010 and

2011 respectively had scheduled a pick-up of a primary unit. As a result, National Grid is revising

the JACO call center script to reduce confusion about what constitutes a primary refrigerator, with

customers being told that primary units will not be eligible for pick-up. Additionally, the policy of no

primary units will be re-enforced with all JACO drivers.

National Grid and JACO are revising marketing materials to clearly state the requirements of the

program, as well as brainstorming methods to reduce ―gaming‖ of the system by customers. A

review of National Grid‘s marketing materials show that the secondary appliance requirement is

very clearly defined on the Power of Action website. However, it is not consistently mentioned as a

requirement of the program on all marketing materials (e.g. television advertisements). This may

indicate that a more direct approach in stating the requirements of the program may be needed

within the marketing materials (see Appendix E for examples of National Grid‘s marketing

materials). Designs for these revisions have begun that more clearly state the program‘s eligibility

for secondary appliances only.

Continue to work with JACO staff to both address confusion on program requirements, but also

gain their insight on any issues. Regular check-ins and meetings with implementation staff will

ensure that any confusion or questions on program requirements are addressed in a timely

matter. For example, based on early survey findings and examination of the JACO dashboard,

National Grid staff met with JACO to discuss the issue of the high percentage of primary

refrigerators being recycled, which are ineligible according to program design. In addition, JACO


1-4


staff may be able to give useful insight to issues within the program (for example, their staff may

be able to best gauge whether the primary refrigerator issue stems from confusion among the

pick-up staff, the customer base or both).

Reinforce screening efforts at the participant registration stage to screen out potential free riders.

While the free ridership estimates for the program were consistent with other evaluations and a

certain amount of free ridership is inevitable, any effort that can be made to screen out free riders

would result in higher net savings. To help reduce free ridership, the revised call center script

emphasizes program requirements that appliances be plugged in and working in order to be

considered eligible for the program. Additionally, the program has added a requirement that

screens out appliances that have not been used at all in the six months prior to the pick up to

eliminate this loss of savings and increase the likelihood of recycling secondary units..

Retain current rebate levels. Almost no participants indicated that they were dissatisfied with the

current rebate amount; in fact, 81 percent of participants indicated that they would have

participated in the program without the rebate. However, JACO staff warned against doing away

with the rebate altogether, because it still remains an effective selling point and draw to those

customers who may be on the fence as to whether to recycle their appliance or not.

Continue to use a multi-pronged marketing strategy to reach the target market. Participants

reported hearing of the program in multiple ways, with word-of-mouth was also noted as an

effective method. While a majority of participants indicated they preferred to hear about programs

via bill inserts, keeping up the current mix of marketing and advertising, and increasing the

number of campaigns will help to ensure that the program goals are met in 2011. Since free pick-

up of appliances was the main motivation for participation, marketing efforts should emphasize

this aspect of the program and the ease of removal, as well as the fact that the appliance is being

permanently recycled which is also important to participants.

Consider adding marketing efforts specifically targeted at ―empty-nesters.‖ While the current

marketing efforts appear to have been quite effective, program participants tend to be older,

childless adults. Target marketing to this population might help boost participation numbers. As

might be expected, this group does not frequently report emails or websites as preferred methods

of program communication. More often, participants over 65 prefer to receive program

information from bill inserts, newspapers, and direct mailings. While they were slightly more likely

to cite ―do not need or use anymore‖ as a reason for wanting to recycle their appliance through

the program, they were also more likely to have an appliance older than 17 years than

households of less than 65 years of age (76 percent vs. 58 percent, respectively).

Consider a leave-behind that includes education on ENERGY STAR appliances and information on

other residential programs. When JACO picks up the appliance, they leave behind a sheet of

information about the recycling process. Because the target market for this program are

customers concerned about a good return on investment (according to interviews with program

staff), the participant population for this program may be appropriate for other residential

programs. National Grid may want to consider the possibility of promoting their other programs in

this leave-behind material. Additionally, a little less than one-half of recycled refrigerators were

replaced, compared with slightly more than one-fourth of freezers. Among customers replacing

their appliance, most replaced their appliance with a new one. The program should seek to

reinforce the choices made by participants by emphasizing how much energy and money they

saved by getting rid of their inefficient model and will continue to save if they do not replace the

appliance. If customers choose to replace the appliance, the program should encourage them to

consider the more efficient ENERGY STAR labeled units.


1-5


JACO should continue to investigate techniques to reduce the number of participants who cancel

their pickup date or drop out of the program. While JACO estimates that approximately 16 percent

of customers change their scheduled appointments or drop-out of the program after signing up,

only about four percent do not show up for their appointment. While in line with their experiences

in other parts of the country, additional steps to retain or re-recruit customers have been

undertaken to help the program reach its goals. These steps include calling the customer two

weeks before the scheduled date, sending a reminder postcard, and calling customers to re-

recruit them into the program. Additionally, National Grid is not charged for those customers who

miss their appliance pick-up.

Avoid the creation of secondary appliances. Should National Grid ever offer an appliance

replacement program in New York, National Grid should consider requiring that replaced

appliances are recycled at the time of new appliance purchase.

2-1


2. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the findings and recommendations resulting from the 2010 process

evaluation of National Grid‘s Refrigerator-Freezer Recycling Program in upstate New York. This

report is one of a series of process evaluation reports of National Grid‘s energy efficiency

programs in New York.

2.1 PROGRAM BACKGROUND

The Refrigerator-Freezer Recycling Program (―the Recycling Program‖) is designed to encourage

households to retire and recycle working, secondary, inefficient refrigerators and freezers. The

program offers customers an incentive of $30 to recycle these secondary units, plus free pick-up.

The program participant goal was to remove 13,850 appliances in 2010 from the residential

market1; savings goals are discussed in Section 2.2.1 below.

Through a competitive bid process, National Grid selected JACO Environmental (JACO)2 as their

implementation vendor. JACO removes the appliances from participating customers‘ homes, and

then safely dismantles and recycles the appliance in an environmentally responsible manner. The

company employs three operating groups with two teams in each core market (Syracuse, Albany,

and Buffalo).

To qualify, customers must be a National Grid electric customer in upstate New York and own the

units for pick-up. In addition, the appliance must be:

Between ten and 30 cubic feet, using inside measurements

For refrigerators, the unit must be a secondary refrigerator and not the primary refrigerator

Clean, empty, and in working order at the time of pick-up

Accessible with a clear path for removal by the contractor.

Each participating household is limited to recycling two units. The refrigerator or freezer must be

picked up at a National Grid electric service address. Once the appliances are picked up, JACO

dismantles the appliances and prepares all of the elements for in-house recycling, which includes

removing and separating all metal, glass, plastic, and gas components of the appliances. These

materials are periodically picked up and recycled by the recycling subcontractors.

The program began operation in July 2010. The planned launch was delayed by an Order from the

Public Service Commission of New York, which had National Grid wait until NYSERDA had

completed their program.

In 2010, customer marketing included bill inserts, email campaigns, television advertising, print

advertising, kick-off events with media, collection truck signage, web links, and information

1 This was the calendar year participant goal. However, the program did not commence until July 2010 when NYSERDA‘s

program ended.

2 As subcontractors to JACO, Univar provides hazmat materials handling services and Runyon Saltzman & Einhorn

provides marketing and public relations support.

2. Introduction

2-2


presented at Go Green Day events. In order to participate, customers submit a request and pick-

up time via the website or by calling the call center. JACO‘s target is to pick up appliances within

17 days, and to deliver the rebate check within four weeks of pick-up. JACO also provides a

―courtesy call‖ to participants within two days of their pick-up to remind them of their

appointment.

A detailed process flow map of the program‘s implementation can be found in Appendix A.

2.2 PROGRAM TRACKING

All appliance and customer information is tracked by JACO in a database. It is integrated with an

online dashboard accessible to National Grid and JACO staff for tracking purposes. Customer

contact information is monitored, along with appliance characteristics (size, age, color, primary

versus secondary, etc.). JACO also tracks order progress, such as whether the customer has

scheduled an appointment or has been sent their rebate. Additionally, JACO tracks canceled

appointments in order to determine whether they can be re-recruited or not. When a customer

signs up for the program either by phone or online, JACO checks against utility zip code and name

information in order to ensure they are only recycling appliances for National Grid customers.

2.2.1 Program Objectives and Achievements To-date

Through the end of December 2010, the program reports recycling 7,430 appliances, achieving

7,836,8873 of net kWh savings (or 87 percent of its kWh savings goal), as show in Table 2-1. It is

important to note that despite this late start, the program achieved 87 percent of its 12-month net

savings goal in a six-month period. Additionally, late in 2010, the 2010 and 2011 savings goals

for this program were combined. The program is on track to meet these new combined goals.

Table 2-1. 2010/2011 Net Achieved Savings and Net Savings Goal

Achieved Goal

2010 Savings 7,836,887 kWh 8,998,335 kWh

2011 Savings 12,866,806 kWh

2010/2011 Combined Savings Goal

21,865,141 kWh

Source: National Grid

In Table 2-2 below, participation by climate zone is detailed, calculated from order data in JACO‘s

dashboard and population numbers provided by National Grid. Similar to climate zone information,

JACO used order data to also calculate a ―metro‖ variable (Buffalo, Syracuse, and Albany). The

metro variable was used in our survey analysis in order to determine if there are any differences

by JACO-assigned area of residence, which will be discussed subsequently.

As shown in Table 2-2, the percentage of appliances recycled compared to eligible customer

population varies by climate zone. While it appears that Binghamton is recycling the highest

3 The savings for 2010 were based on the December 16, 2009, Technical Manual, using average DOE nameplate

energy usage for the refrigerators and freezers.

2. Introduction

2-3


percentage of appliances, only three appliances have been recycled as it has the smallest relative

National Grid account population. Among the other four climate zones, Syracuse has the highest

percent of appliances recycled compared to the eligible population (0.64 percent). Overall, 0.50

percent of the eligible population in upstate New York recycled in 2010. The percentage of eligible

customers recycling appliances in 2010 in New York is lower than what was estimated by JACO in

National Grid‘s Rhode Island territory (approximately one percent).

Table 2-2. Recycling Orders by Climate Zone

Climate Zone

Number of recycled

appliances Number of accounts

Percent recycled by climate zone

Percent recycled overall

Albany 2,494 505,383 0.49%

0.50%

Binghamton 3 283 1.06%

Buffalo 1,976 479,988 0.41%

Massena 298 72,511 0.41%

Syracuse 2,660 415,992 0.64%

Source: National Grid4

2.2.2 Program Logic Model

The first activity in the program logic model (see Figure 2-1 below) is to develop a program

infrastructure. National Grid works collaboratively with JACO to implement the program. JACO, in

turn, works with several subcontractors for both marketing, appliance pick-up, and recycling.

National Grid has also hired a process evaluator to assist in identifying needed refinements to

the program.

JACO and National Grid coordinate on the second activity in the program logic model—marketing

the program—to ensure there is an integrated marketing effort. JACO, National Grid, and a

marketing subcontractor conduct various marketing activities for the program as enumerated in

the logic model outputs for this activity.

JACO leads the third activity in the program logic model, collecting and rebating refrigerators and

freezers. JACO manages nearly all of the implementation of the program, from appliance pick-up,

recycling, data documentation and database management, and rebate processing.

4 This table totals 7,431 recycled appliances, which is the number of records in the 2010 JACO dashboard data provided

by National Grid.

2. Introduction. . .

2-4


Figure 2-1. National Grid New York State Refrigerator and Freezer Recycling Program Logic Model (upstate)

Sufficient National Grid program investmentMarketing materials, advertising campaign; program

website

Rebate level, processing, and payment system

developed between National Grid and JACO

Environmental

National Grid program team in place (Katie Fowler,

program manager; Michelle Eburn, marketing)

PSC approval of program

Activities Develop Program Infrastructure Direct Marketing Collect and Rebate Measures

Vendor selection (JACO Environmental - prime,

Appliance Distribution - appliance recycling infastructure

established, including Univar - hazmat materials

handling services, Runyon Saltzman & Einhorn -

marketing and public relations)

Direct communication of program to National Grid

customers via utility bill insert, email campaigns, print

newsletters (bill inserts), and direct mail

National Grid NY customers participate in program by

calling call center or submitting request on website

Program measures, rebate levels, forms, and marketing

strategy developed, refined, finalized, and documented;

best practices reviewed

Marketing via television advertising, print advertising, kick-

off events with media, collection truck signage, web

links, information presented at Go Green Day events

JACO Environmental and subcontractors perform

marketing, dashboard updates, appliance "harvesting"

tasks: scheduling, customer communication, appliance

pick-up, decommissioning, and recycling

Appropriate National Grid data available to JACO,

necessary JACO data captured and viewable in

dashboard, National Grid/JACO web enrollment and call

center ready

Communication of program parameters (i.e., second

refrigerator/freezer, plugged in and operable, correct

size)

Appliance pick-up occurs within 17 calendar days

Program launched in July, 2010 Leave-behind sheet explaining programProgram customers receive rebate within 4 weeks of

pick-up

JACO responds to all customer complaints or questions

within 24 hours of receipt

National Grid and JACO data supports program tracking

and evaluation

Program offering is meaningful, clear, and valuable to

customersAnnual kWh and kW savings goals attained

Program administrative functions ready for launchResidential customer's awareness of and participation in

the program increasesCost effective program management

National Grid and JACO staff knowledgeable about the

program and its resources

National Grid customers view program as

environmentally sound stewardship

Long term

outcomes

Annual recycling goals are achieved within budgetary

constraints - 8,998,335 kWh in net savings in 2010.

Increased residential customer awareness of and

demand for energy efficiency equipment through

National Grid

Increased penetration of program results in removal of

underutilized, inefficient appliances off the grid

National Grid New York Refrigerator-Freezer Recycling Program Logic Model

Inputs/

Resources

Outputs

Short to

medium

term

outcomes

2. Introduction. . .

2-5


2.3 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The researchable issues identified for the process evaluation are organized around eight primary

activities. These issues were refined in interviews with program managers.

Table 2-3. Key Researchable Issues

Researchable Question Activity to Support the Question

Customer Awareness and Marketing

How is the program promotion working? What improvements can be made?

Program and implementation staff interviews

Participant survey

How do participants most commonly hear about and become involved in the program?

Participant survey

What additional marketing and outreach is needed? Program and implementation staff

interview

Program Administration, Processes and Resources

How effective is the collaboration between all National Grid and JACO? Program and implementation staff

interviews

Is the support to JACO sufficient? If not, what additional training and education support can be provided?


Are program goals clearly understood and communicated? Program and implementation staff

interviews

Do program manager and JACO feel they have sufficient staffing resources to efficiently deliver the program? What additional information or resources are needed?


Trade Ally Participation

Are there any internal or external barriers to JACO effectively delivering the program? Are program requirements clearly understood and correctly implemented?

Program and implementation staff interview

Use of other trade partners (e.g., new and used appliance retailers, Community Action Agencies) in providing program information and encouraging participation?


Participant survey

Ease of Participation

What are the characteristics of the participating customer population and how does that compare to the eligible population? Are there any groups not reached by the program that also have financial and efficiency needs?


Participant survey

What barriers exist for customers’ participation in the program? What marketing and outreach efforts are most successful in generating customer leads?

Program staff interviews

Participant survey

Program Satisfaction

How is the program working? How could it be improved? What enhancements are needed in the design and delivery of the program?


Participant survey

Are customers satisfied with the program? What do they believe could be offered to improve program services?


Participant survey

Customer Characteristics and Decision Making Processes

Did customers replace the secondary refrigerator? Participant survey

Why did customers decide to recycle their secondary appliance? Participant survey

2. Introduction

2-6


Researchable Question Activity to Support the Question

How was the secondary appliance being used? Participant survey

Does participation affect participants’ perception of the utility and, if so, how? Participant survey

To what extent is the program reaching all segments of the population? Participant survey

Program Saturation

Is the program delivering the intended benefits to participants and are they achieving planned energy impacts?


Participant survey

Is the appropriate information being collected to support future evaluation activities (i.e., impact evaluation)?


Are program goals set appropriately? Program staff interviews

Will the program be on target to reach its savings and spending goals? Why or why not?

Program staff interviews

Program Impacts

What are the bill impacts and savings of program participation? Onsite metering

5

Participant survey

Explore free ridership and spillover issues for the purpose of informing program design

Participant survey

2.4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

As part of the process evaluation, Tetra Tech conducted in-depth interviews with five program and

implementation staff, as well as 405 quantitative participant surveys. Below, we present the study

methodology, including sampling and data collection protocols.

2.4.1 Sampling

The sample for the participant survey was randomly selected using customer data downloaded

from the JACO dashboard. To ensure a high response rate and good customer recall, the

households were sampled using the following criterion: recycled an appliance in September or

October of 2010, and had received their rebate (per the JACO database).

The sample was pulled from two separate files: one containing order and appliance information

and one containing customer contact information. The sample was also screened for incomplete

data, checked for duplicates, and aggregated to the household level in instances where customers

recycled more than one appliance.

2.4.2 Data Collection

Tetra Tech interviewed the key management staff from National Grid and JACO. These interviews

included one program manager and one marketing analyst at National Grid, as well as one

program development manager, one regional manager, and one warehouse manager at JACO. Key

researchable issues explored in the in-depth interviews included marketing effectiveness,

5 The onsite metering is being conducted as part of the impact evaluation; the onsite results will be reported at a later

date.

2. Introduction

2-7


collaboration between National Grid and JACO staff, program goals, barriers to program

implementation, program design and delivery, and customer satisfaction. Where applicable in this

report, detailed findings from the National Grid and JACO staff interviews are integrated with

findings from the customer survey.

In addition to in-depth interviews with implementation staff, this evaluation included 405

quantitative surveys with participating customers who recycled an appliance.66 The objectives of

this survey were to capture customer perceptions of and experiences with the program, equipment

characteristics (e.g., appliance age, condition), customer views regarding the program incentive,

and attitudes towards energy efficiency practices. The survey also collected information on

customer decision-making for use in estimating free ridership as part of the impact evaluation.

Prior to implementing the survey, Tetra Tech pretested the survey instrument and revised the

instrument as needed based on the results of the pretest.

The surveys were conducted between October 21, 2010, and November 24, 2010. At the survey

onset, sampled customers were mailed an advance letter explaining the purpose of the call,

asking for their cooperation, and inviting customers to call a toll-free number to complete the

survey at their convenience. In order to maximize the response rates, we averaged up to six

attempts to reach nonrespondents over different days of the week and weeks of the month. The

final cooperation rate was 53 percent (see Appendix D for the detailed survey cooperation rate).

In order to limit respondent burden and keep the interview below twenty minutes, participants who

recycled both a refrigerator and a freezer were only asked appliance-specific questions about the

freezer, as they were less commonly recycled than refrigerators. Survey data was then weighted to

be consistent with the ratios of those who recycled refrigerator(s) only, freezer(s) only, and both

refrigerator(s) and freezer(s) within the 2010 population at the time of analysis. Additionally,

responses of ―don‘t know‖ and ―refused‖ were dropped from analysis except where noted.

Therefore, there will be variability in the total number of responses (―n‖) question to question.

2.5 REPORT ORGANIZATION

The next section of this report presents the results of the process evaluation. We present the

detailed process findings in the following categories:

Program Administration and Oversight

Program Goals and Participation

Sources of Program Information

Appliance Characteristics

Rebates

Program Satisfaction

Energy Awareness

Demographics.

6 This number of completed surveys provides a 95/5 level of precision.

2. Introduction

2-8


Section 3 of this report discusses process-related findings from the customer survey, while Section

4 presents the free ridership estimates and key impact findings from the impact evaluation.

Section 5 discusses key recommendations. The technical appendices contain the process flow

diagram (Appendix A), program staff in-depth interview guide (Appendix B), participating customer

survey (Appendix C), the customer survey cooperation rate (Appendix D), and examples of National

Grid marketing materials (Appendix E).

3-1


3. PROCESS EVALUATION FINDINGS

This section presents the detailed findings resulting from the process evaluation completed for

upstate New York customers. It should be noted that appliance-specific customer survey results

were examined by appliance type (refrigerator or freezer), as well as by key demographic

questions (i.e., income, age of members of household), climate zone, and pick-up area (assigned

by JACO). In this section, we note where responses differed by appliance type, demographics or

geography.

On the whole, feedback from staff interviewees and customers involved with the Refrigerator-

Freezer Recycling program indicate the program is functioning well and participant satisfaction is

very high (over 90 percent). At the same time, the program faced several challenges in 2010,

most specifically those associated with ramping up a program quickly mid-year with a short

amount of time to achieve its goals. The following detailed findings summarize both areas that are

working well as well as opportunities for improvement. Chapter 5 contains more detailed

conclusions and recommendations.

Detailed findings are presented in the following categories: program administration and oversight,

program goals and participation, source of program information, appliance characteristics,

rebates, program satisfaction, awareness of energy-related issues, and demographics.

3.1 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND OVERSIGHT

Per the qualitative program staff interviews, the relationship between National Grid and JACO has

been working well. National Grid and JACO expressed satisfaction in both the level and quality of

communication in regards to the program. JACO staff report that they cooperate with National Grid

to address issues as they come up, and feel that they have ―plenty of support.‖ Staff from both

National Grid and JACO have also been attending a standing biweekly meeting to discuss any non-

urgent issues. National Grid staff expressed approval with the relationship with JACO staff, one

staff member noting that they ―feel comfortable talking to‖ JACO and it is ―refreshing‖ to work with

staff that understand their regulatory needs so clearly. National Grid staff are also satisfied with

the program dashboard maintained by JACO and typically access it several times a day to track

program progress.

National Grid staff reported that JACO has been extremely responsive to the few pick-up related

complaints (i.e. damage to customer property), responding within 24 hours. JACO also indicated

that they have extensive quality control processes in place for both the customer call center and

the pick-up staff. These quality control processes include tracking the percentage of on-time pick-

ups and having pick-up crews immediately check in with managers if there is an issue.

Program functions, such as scheduling the appliance pick-up and sending out the rebate check,

occur in a timely manner. JACO staff aim to pick up the majority of appliances within 17 calendar

days (if convenient for the respondent). According to program participants, two-thirds of

appliances are picked up within this timeframe. When appliances are picked up, JACO leaves

behind a sheet with information on the recycling.

JACO staff noted that most participants receive their rebate check between 14 and 16 days after

recycling their appliance (at most, within four weeks). A majority of participants indicated that they

received their rebate check between two and four weeks after pick-up (70 percent). Fifteen

3. Process Evaluation Findings

3-2


percent indicated that they received their check more than 4 weeks after their appliance was

picked up.

In order to maximize efficiency, JACO has developed an extensive planning and mapping system

method to minimize travel times between pick-up sites in upstate New York, and has assigned

crews to one of three territories. This focus on efficiency positively affects both the ability to

increase customer uptake in the program, as well as participant satisfaction.

Internally, both National Grid and JACO staff noted that initially there had been some difficulties

using InDemand to enter invoices. These issues were solved within a few months. While

InDemand is consistently being tested and undergoing updates, vendors often have difficulty in

the beginning uploading their invoices on an unfamiliar system.

3.2 PROGRAM GOALS AND PARTICIPATION

While the goals for 2010 were very aggressive due to the delayed kickoff, at the time of the

interviews staff generally felt that the goals could have been achieved under a full year timeline,

and were cautiously optimistic that they would reach 60 percent of their 12 month participant goal

in a six-month period. Earlier this year, NYSERDA was implementing an appliance recycling

program in New York. Because NYSERDA and National Grid were targeting the same market for

their appliance recycling programs, National Grid‘s Refrigerator-Freezer Recycling Program was

delayed to allow the NYSERDA program to wrap up. National Grid‘s program did not begin recycling

appliances until July.

Also, staff indicated that there are ―cyclical, seasonal changes‖ to uptake in appliance recycling

programs. Homeowners tend to use their secondary refrigerator or freezer most often during the

holiday season between Thanksgiving and the Super Bowl, leading to a possible slowdown in

uptake levels as the year progresses. This, coupled with the late start, made reaching the 2010

participant goals more challenging.

Both National Grid and JACO staff hoped that recent marketing efforts (such as several large direct

mailings and bill inserts) would push participation numbers higher as the year progressed. Figure

3-1 details the number of appliances recycled per month in 2010.


3-3


Figure 3-1. Number of Appliances Recycled by JACO per Month in 2010

Source: JACO Dashboard data, provided by National Grid

While the program does set participant goals, net savings goals are what program staff report.

Adjustments to the savings calculations made near the end of the calendar year revealed that the

program was actually much closer to reaching its savings goals than originally expected (see Table

3-1). The program actually achieved 87 percent of their 12-month savings goal in the six-month

period. Additionally, at the end of 2010, the 2010 and 2011 program goals were combined. The

program is on track to meet this combined goal.

Table 3-1. 2010/2011 Net Achieved Savings and Net Savings Goal7

Achieved Goal

2010 Savings 7,836,887 kWh 8,998,335 kWh

2011 Savings 12,866,806 kWh

2010/2011 Combined Savings Goal

21,865,141 kWh

Source: National Grid

7 The savings for 2010 were based on the December 16, 2009, Technical Manual, using average DOE nameplate

energy usage for the refrigerators and freezers.


3-4


In 2011, staff noted that the implications of the program closing in 2012 may make meeting

2011 goals a challenge. If the program is not approved in 2012, simultaneously ramping down the

program while still trying to meet 2011 program goals may be difficult. Ideally, JACO and National

Grid prefer to market the program throughout the year so that demand for the program remains

relatively steady. If the program will not be offered in 2012, marketing efforts in the last half of

2011 would need to inform customers that the program will no longer exist in 2012.

Finally, JACO program staff estimate that approximately 16 percent of customers change their

original pick-up date or drop out of the program. Four percent of customers miss their

appointment. However, none of these events add to the cost of the program since National Grid is

only charged for those appliances that are picked up and recycled. JACO said these percents are

in-line with other recycling programs in other parts of the country. As of February, JACO has

attempted to re-recruit these customers. Other ways JACO tries to reduce no shows is to call the

customer two weeks before the scheduled date and send a reminder postcard.

JACO staff currently is not able to discern a pattern for drop-outs; one staff member noted that

often ―something just happens the day of the appointment‖ and then the customer never

reschedules their missed appointment. JACO reports that they leave a door hanger on the doors of

customers who are not home at the time of the scheduled pick-up, which provides instructions for

re-scheduling

3.3 SOURCES OF PROGRAM INFORMATION

National Grid staff indicated that they have used a wide variety of marketing techniques to reach

their target market, including kick-off events involving local media, bill inserts, print newsletters,

direct mailings, emails, and newspaper advertisements. JACO, using a subcontractor, also

promotes the program through television and print advertisements. These marketing efforts target

the ―ROI‖ market segment; these are customers who are very concerned with saving money and

getting a good return on their investments. While some of these marketing attempts had been

implemented too recently at the time of the evaluation to judge their specific success, increases in

uptake numbers indicate that the marketing efforts of National Grid and JACO in general have

been effective in bringing in new participants. JACO staff believe a more intensive program kick-off

with bill inserts combined with public relation events and paid media would have been more

effective in generating program awareness and interest.

This is consistent with the findings from customer interviews. As shown in Figure 3-2, most

participants heard about the program either through a newspaper (42 percent), a television

advertisement (24 percent), or a utility bill insert (20 percent). Sixteen percent heard about the

program through a family member or friend. When compared to area of residence, significantly

more people in Syracuse heard of the program through a newspaper ad (53 percent) compared to

Albany or Buffalo (37 and 26 percent, respectively).


3-5


Figure 3-2. Method of Hearing of Recycling Program (n=399)

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, question P1_1 to P1_16

Despite how they actually did hear about the program, a majority of all participants indicated that

they prefer to hear about programs like this through utility bill inserts (52 percent; Table 3-2).

Analysis was done to see if any differences exist between household age groups. Households were

divided into those that contain individuals above the age of 65 (46 percent) and those that do not

(54 percent). Those households with members above the age of 65 were significantly more likely

to hear of the program from a newspaper (48 percent) than those who did not have members

above the age of 65 (36 percent). As might be expected, households with members over 65 do not

frequently report emails or websites as preferred methods of program communication; more often,

these households prefer to receive program information from bill inserts, newspapers, and direct

mailings. This suggests that a targeted marketing effort to older customers with secondary

appliances should include mainly tangible, ―paper‖ marketing materials.


3-6


Table 3-2. Preferred Methods of Program Communication – All Participants (n = 389)

Preferred Method Responses Percentage

Utility bill insert 202 52 %

Direct mailing 106 27%

Newspaper 61 16%

Email newsletter 58 15%

Television 30 8%

Radio 8 2%

Websites 7 2%

Other 4 1%

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, question P2_1 to P2_11

When asked what they think happens to appliances after they are picked up by the program, most

participants (61 percent) thought that their appliance was recycled. However, over one-fifth of

participants (21 percent) did not know what happened to their appliance once it was picked up. Of

those who thought their appliance was recycled, 87 percent gave a rating of eight or higher (on a

scale where zero is not at all important and ten is very important) when asked how important it

was to them that their appliance was safely recycled.

Most participants signed up to participate in the program over the phone (81 percent) with 18

percent signing up online. Another one percent said they signed up in some other way.

3.4 APPLIANCE CHARACTERISTICS

A majority of participants (87 percent) indicated that the appliance they recycled through the

Refrigerator-Freezer Recycling program was over ten years old. Less than one percent of all

participants indicated that their appliance was less than five years old. Recycled freezers were

significantly more likely than recycled refrigerators to be more than 20 years old.


3-7


Table 3-3. Age of Recycled Appliance

Refrigerator (n=243) Freezer (n=125) Total (n=368)

Responses Percent Responses Percent Responses Percent

5 years old or less 1 0% 0 0% 1 0%

6 to 10 years old 34 14% 12 10% 46 12%

11 to 16 years old**8 66 27% 15 12% 81 22%

17 to 20 years old 54 22% 20 16% 74 20%

More than 20 years old** 88 36% 78 62% 166 46%

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, questions RF2 and FZ2.

Most participants indicated that their appliance worked well, or only needed a few repairs (92

percent overall). Only one percent of those who recycled a freezer indicated that it did not work at

the time of pick-up and no participants who recycled a refrigerator indicated that their appliance

did not work at the time of pick-up. As shown in Table 3-4, 67 percent of refrigerators which were

older than 20 years were still working and in good condition, and 74 percent of freezers which

were older than 20 years were still working and in good condition.

8 Two asterisks (**) indicate that the difference between groups is statistically significant at the 95% level. One asterisk

(*) indicates that the difference between groups is significant at the 90% level.


3-8


Table 3-4. Condition of Appliance Compared To Age

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, questions RF2 and RF5.

Although nearly all the recycled appliances worked at the time of pick-up, there were some units

that were not being used. Freezer participants were significantly more likely than refrigerator

participants to indicate that they never had their appliance plugged in during the year prior to

recycling (Table 3-5). Ninety-three percent of refrigerators were plugged in at least part of the time

in the year prior to recycling, compared to 74 percent of freezers. More than one-half of

refrigerators and slightly less than one-half of freezers were plugged in all of the time. Of those

appliances that were only plugged in part-time, both refrigerators and freezers averaged 4.2

months of operation over the past 12 months. Of the freezers that were never used in the year

prior to participating in the program, 64 percent were more than 20 years old. Additionally, of the

23 refrigerators that worked but had some bigger problems, 21 were plugged in all of the time.

0 to 16 years old 17 to 20 years old More than 20 years

old Total

Responses Percent Responses Percent Responses Percent Responses Percent

Refrigerator (n=243)

It worked and was in good physical condition

49 49% 33 61% 59 67% 141 58%

It worked but needed some minor repairs such as a gasket seal or handle

36 36% 20 37% 25 28% 81 33%

It worked but had some bigger problems

16 16% 1 2% 4 5% 21 9%

It did not work

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Freezer (n=91)

It worked and was in good physical condition

14 N/A 9 N/A 42 74% 65 71%

It worked but needed some minor repairs such as a gasket seal or handle

5 N/A 3 N/A 12 21% 20 22%

It worked but had some bigger problems

2 N/A 1 N/A 2 4% 5 5%

It did not work

0 N/A 0 N/A 1 2% 1 1%


3-9


Table 3-5. Frequency Appliance Was Plugged In



All the time*9 154 57% 63 48% 217 53%

Most of the time 18 7% 11 8% 29 7%

During certain months of the year**

41 15% 5 4% 46 11%

Occasionally, such as for special events

40 15% 19 14% 59 15%

Never** 19 7% 35 26% 54 14%


If the respondent answered anything other than ―All the time‖ or ―Never,‖ they were asked to

estimate the number of months in the previous year the appliance was in use. This information

was used to calculate the average months per year the appliance was used. Refrigerators were

used more frequently than freezers; refrigerators were used 8.4 months per year on average, and

freezers were used 6.9 months per year on average.

Significantly more refrigerators than freezers were located in the kitchen prior to pick-up by the

program (see Table 3-6). Freezers were most likely to be located in basements and garages (53

percent and 33 percent, respectively).

Table 3-6. Location of Appliance Prior to Recycling



Basement*10

113 42% 52 53% 165 45%

Kitchen** 64 24% 3 3% 67 18%

Garage 69 25% 32 33% 101 28%

Porch/Patio 6 2% 6 6% 12 3%

Laundry room 4 2% 1 1% 5 1%

Yard 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Some other place 16 6% 4 4% 20 5%


As seen in Table 3-7, younger refrigerators were more likely to be located in the kitchen.

Conversely, the older the refrigerator, the more likely it was to be located in the basement. There

was no similar pattern for freezers, as very few were located in the kitchen.

9 Two asterisks (**) indicate that the difference between groups is statistically significant at the 95% level. One asterisk

(*) indicates that the difference between groups is significant at the 90% level.

10 Two asterisks (**) indicate that the difference between groups is statistically significant at the 95% level. One

asterisk (*) indicates that the difference between groups is significant at the 90% level.


3-10


Table 3-7. Location of Refrigerator Compared to Age (n=243)

0 to 10 years old 11 to 16 years old 17 to 20 years old More than 20 years

old Total

Responses Percent Responses Percent Responses Percent Responses Percent Responses Percent

Basement 7 20% 22 33% 26 48% 48 55% 103 42%

Kitchen 14 40% 20 30% 11 20% 9 10% 54 22%

Garage 11 31% 15 23% 14 26% 23 26% 63 26%

Some other place

3 9% 9 9% 3 6% 8 3% 23 9%

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, questions RF8 and RF2

Twenty-two percent of participants noted that their recycled refrigerator was a primary appliance,

rather than a secondary appliance as specified under program eligibility. This is consistent with

Table 3-6 above, which indicates that 24 percent of refrigerators are located in the kitchen (the

most likely location of a primary refrigerator). In fact, of primary refrigerators, 95 percent were

located in the kitchen. Conversely, only four percent of secondary refrigerators were located in the

kitchen; secondary refrigerators were much more likely to be located in the basement (51 percent)

or the garage (32 percent). Refrigerators that were not in use were kept in the basement or

garage.

Currently, the program requirements list only secondary appliances as eligible for participation,

although the JACO dashboard data indicates that seven percent of refrigerators are primary

appliances. As stated above, the customer self-report from the survey indicates that 22 percent of

recycled refrigerators are actually primary. JACO staff do screen customers during their initial

contact phone call, so the reasons for this discrepancy are not immediately clear. This finding may

indicate several things: confusion among the customer base as to what constitutes a ―primary‖

refrigerator; confusion among the pick-up staff as to the requirements of the program or incorrect

data collection while on-site; or customers understand the program requirements but ―game‖ the

system (aka, claiming a primary refrigerator is really secondary at the time of pick-up). Therefore, it

is difficult to determine whether the JACO data or the customer self-report is a more accurate

representation.

When the survey data were analyzed by area of residence (Table 3-8), significantly more primary

refrigerators were recycled in Syracuse (29 percent) than in Buffalo or Albany (17 and 15 percent,

respectively). Participants in Buffalo rated their satisfaction with the clarity of program

requirements significantly higher than the other two metro areas (97 percent rated clarity as an

eight or above on a zero to ten scale, compared to 89 percent in Syracuse and 88 percent in

Albany). Thus, it is not clear whether the clarity of marketing materials explains this difference in

the number of primary refrigerators recycled. In our review of the marketing materials, the website

clearly states the secondary appliance requirement. This was not as clear in other materials.

Regardless of the reason, better communication and understanding is needed between the

customer base, JACO, and National Grid as to what constitutes eligible equipment. Additionally, all

marketing materials clearly need to stress this point to customers.


3-11


Additionally, 9 percent of all appliances were not being used at the time of pickup. While this is not

currently listed as a program requirement, it negatively affects savings. The program should

consider adding that requirement and expressing it clearly to customers via marketing materials.

Table 3-8. Use of Refrigerator by Area

Buffalo (n=66) Syracuse (n=127) Albany (n=79) Total (n=272)

Responses Percent Responses Percent Responses Percent Responses Percent

Used as Main/Primary*

11

11 17% 37 29% 12 15% 60 22%

Used as a Spare/Secondary

48 73% 81 64% 59 75% 188 69%

Not being used 7 11% 9 7% 8 10% 24 9%

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, questions RF1 and METRO (calculated variable).

Participants who indicated their refrigerator was a secondary unit at the time of pick-up reported

that their appliance had been used as such for an average of 11.1 years.

Sixty-eight percent of those who recycled a refrigerator and 76 percent of those who recycled a

freezer indicated that they had considered disposing of their appliance before they heard of the

Refrigerator-Freezer Recycling program. When asked why they decided to dispose of their

appliance through the program, participants most often reported financial reasons such as the

program incentive or a desire to reduce energy savings (44 percent overall), logistical reasons

such as the convenience of the program provided pick-up (38 percent), and environmental or

energy saving reasons (29 percent). Participants who recycled their freezer were significantly more

likely than those recycling their refrigerator to mention the age or status of their old appliance as a

motivator to participating in the program (Table 3-9).




3-12


Table 3-9. Motivation to Participate in Program



Financial reasons (reduce energy costs, the rebate)

116 46% 46 41% 162 44%

Logistical reasons (convenience, provided pickup)

92 37% 46 40% 138 38%

Helping the environment or saving energy

78 31% 29 25% 107 29%

Age or status of old appliance*12

65 26% 39 34% 104 29%

Other 17 6% 19 15% 36 10%

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, questions RFR2 and FFR2.

When motivation to recycle through the program was examined by households who had members

above the age of 65 compared to those that did not, several differences stand out. Those with a

household member over 65 were significantly less likely to indicate that they participated because

they wanted to recycle their appliance (18 percent compared to 27 percent). They were more likely

to indicate they recycled their appliance because they did not need or use their appliance anymore

(26 percent of older households compared to 18 percent of younger households).

While all participants indicated that they had at least one refrigerator currently in their home,

slightly less than one-third of those who recycled a freezer indicated that they had one or more

freezers currently in their home. Refrigerator participants are significantly more likely to have more

than one appliance in their home (Table 3-10). Most appliances which are still in the home are

less than ten years old.




3-13


Table 3-10. Quantity of Appliances in Home



Zero**13

0 0% 91 69% 91 25%

One** 175 64% 38 29% 213 51%

Two** 90 33% 4 3% 94 22%

Three 6 2% 0 0% 6 1%

Four 1 0% 0 0% 1 0%

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, question RRF1 and FB1.

3.5 REBATES

Forty-seven percent of participants that recycled a refrigerator, and 49 percent of those who

recycled a freezer said they would have been willing to pay something to have their appliance

removed. Participants indicated that they would be willing to pay a wide range of dollar amounts,

ranging from $5 to $100. On average, those who recycled freezers were willing to pay slightly

more ($20) compared to those who recycled refrigerators ($15). Thirteen percent of each group

were not sure what, if anything, they would be willing to pay.

Table 3-11. Average Price Willing to Pay to Remove Appliance

Mean

Freezers (n=77) $19.87

Refrigerators (n=135) $14.67

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, question RFR9A and FFR9A.

When asked to rate the importance of several aspects of the program in their decision to

participate, participants overwhelmingly rated the free pick-up of the program as being very

important (mean of 9.0) in their decision to participate. Those with freezers rated the free pick-up

as slightly higher in importance than those who recycled a refrigerator (9.3 and 8.8, respectively).

Compared to the high rating given to the free pick-up, much lower ratings were given to the

marketing materials and recycling information (mean of 6.8) and the program rebate (mean of

5.8). Similarly, a majority of participants (81 percent of the refrigerator group and 80 percent of

the freezer group) reported that they would have participated in the program if they had not

received a rebate. While not an overwhelming number, about one-fourth of participants indicated

that the need to move their appliance may have played a role in their ability to dispose of it; this

may be one of several factors that explain why the free pick-up was key to a large majority of

participants.




3-14


Table 3-12. Mean Level of Importance of Program Aspect

Mean

Rebate (n=397) 5.8

Information Provided (n=364) 6.8

Free Pick-up (n=400) 9.0

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, questions RP1 through RP1B, FB1 through FB1B.

When National Grid and JACO staffs were asked whether the program‘s rebate was set

appropriately, all of them said yes. The $30 rebate is in line with rebates across the country ($25–

$50 according to JACO). However, program staff also reported that inflexibility in regulatory

requirements restrict the ability to change program incentive levels quickly if needed. Adjusting

the incentive level (as done in Massachusetts) can boost participation on short notice.

Regulatory requirements in the state of New York limit National Grid‘s ability to change incentive

levels for their energy efficiency programs once they have been established. A change in incentive,

up to 20 percent of the original amount, can be submitted in a letter of request to the

Commission. However, approval can vary, sometimes taking up to 90 days. While it has not been

an issue for the recycling program, National Grid staff expressed some interest in having the

flexibility to alter the incentive levels in a more timely fashion in order to quickly recruit

participants to meet savings goals.

Participant responses indicate that they are happy with the current rebate level and the free,

convenient pickup of their appliance is the primary motivating factor. Thus, while program staff

would like the flexibility to raise the rebate if needed, the current level should not likely be a

barrier to the program reaching its combined 2010/2011 goals.

3.6 PROGRAM SATISFACTION

Per qualitative interviews with program staff, customer satisfaction appears to be high, with few

complaints and a quick reaction to those complaints. National Grid staff said they received a few

program-related complaints, less than other energy efficiency programs that National Grid

manages in New York. Since their customers ―tend to be very vocal,‖ National Grid staff said this

lack of negative feedback is a good indicator of high customer satisfaction.

Participant interviews support staff‘s assertion of high participant satisfaction. Customers were

asked to rate their satisfaction with a number of program aspects on an eleven point scale with

zero being not at all satisfied and ten being very satisfied. A majority of participants scored all

aspects of the program above an eight on this scale (Figure 3-3). The two most highly rated

aspects of the program were the program staff‘s respect for property (95 percent) and the

courteousness of pick-up staff (95 percent). The lowest rating of 81 percent was given to the

amount of time it took to receive their rebate check. When asked to rate their satisfaction with the

program overall, nearly all (97 percent) rated it an eight or above on a zero to ten scale. There

were no discernable differences in satisfaction levels between those who recycled a refrigerator

and those who recycled a freezer. However, participants in Syracuse were significantly more likely

to be satisfied with the process of scheduling a pickup than those in Albany (92 and 85 percent,

respectively). Additionally, as stated before, satisfaction with the clarity of program requirements

and processes was significantly higher in Buffalo than either Syracuse or Albany.


3-15


Figure 3-3. Respondents Satisfied with Various Program Aspects (8 or higher on a scale of 0 to 10)

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, questions E1A to E1I, customers rating satisfaction as eight

or higher on a ten-point scale.

Participants were asked qualitatively about any changes that could be made to improve the

program. Most participants indicated that they did not have any suggestions for program

improvements. Among those who did have a suggestion to improve the program, participants most

frequently reported requesting a larger rebate check, including more types of appliances in the

program (water heaters, air conditioners, stoves, etc), and speeding up the processes (the time

between the scheduling and the pick-up, the time between the pick-up and the receipt of the

rebate check, etc). While some participants had not indicated in previous questions that the

rebate was very important in their decision to participate (in fact, most said they would have

participated without the check altogether), these responses indicate that the rebate is still an

important factor to some respondents. Of the 25 respondents (out of 405) who mentioned a

higher rebate in their suggestions for the program, 16 (4 percent of all respondents) gave a rating

of eight or higher when asked about the importance of the rebate on their decision to participate

in the program.

A majority of participants indicated that they received their rebate check between two and four

weeks after pick-up (70 percent), which is in line with what JACO has estimated (16 to 18 days).

Fifteen percent indicated that they received their check more than 4 weeks after their appliance

was picked up.

As another indicator of high satisfaction, all but two participants said they would recommend the

program to others (over 99 percent). Nearly all participants indicated that they were just as

satisfied (56 percent) or more satisfied (42 percent) with National Grid as their energy provider as


3-16


a result of their participation in the program as seen in Figure 3-4. Those who said they were less

satisfied as a result (two percent), mostly reported dissatisfaction with rates or billing issues, and

few actual program-related problems.

Figure 3-4. More, Same, Or Less Satisfied with National Grid (n=400)

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, question E14.

3.7 ENERGY AWARENESS

When asked, a majority of participants (92 percent) said that they are aware of the ENERGY STAR

label. This is a higher percentage than found in a national study conducted in 2009, where 64

percent of households recalled seeing or hearing of the ENERGY STAR label14.

Awareness is significantly higher among participants who recycled a refrigerator (95 percent) than

those who recycled a freezer (87 percent). As shown in Table 3-13, a majority of people who have

heard of ENERGY STAR reported owning one or more ENERGY STAR appliances or measures (88

percent). The most common ENERGY STAR measures reported include refrigerators, clothes

washers, and dishwashers. Interestingly, 15 percent of participants indicated that they had an

ENERGY STAR clothes dryer, although ENERGY STAR does not currently label any dryers.

14 EPA Office of Air and Radiation, Climate Protection Partnerships Division. National Awareness of ENERGY STAR® for

2009: Analysis of 2009 CEE Household Survey. U.S. EPA, 2010.


3-17


Table 3-13. Ownership of ENERGY STAR Appliances

Total (n=303)

Responses Percent

Refrigerator 207 68%

Clothes washer 140 46%

Dishwasher 82 27%

Clothes dryer 47 15%

Light bulb 42 14%

Furnace 44 15%

Television 33 11%

Microwave 29 10%

Stove or Oven 30 10%

Hot water heater or boiler 27 9%

Central air conditioner 22 7%

Windows 19 6%

Freezer 22 7%

Room, Window, or Wall AC 9 3%

Other 10 3%

Thermostat 10 3%

Dehumidifier 11 4%

Computer 12 4%

Doors 12 4%

VCR/DVD player 1 0.3%

Smart power strips 1 0.3%

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, question A8

As shown in Figure 3-5, when asked to rate their agreement with several energy-related

statements on a scale of zero to ten, most participants disagreed with the statements ―My

personal contribution to energy efficiency does not make a difference‖ and ―I don't know how to

make my home more energy efficient‖ (means of 3.1 and 3.6, respectively). Participants also

disagreed with the statement ―Using energy efficient products and practices requires too much

effort‖ (mean of 2.4). However, participants neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement ―My

family's comfort is more important than conserving energy‖ (mean of 5.0). Participants mostly

agreed with the statement ―I care that my energy consumption today will have an impact on future

generations‖ (mean of 8.8).


3-18


Figure 3-5. Attitudes on Energy Efficiency

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, questions A11A to A11E (0 = strongly disagree and 10 =

strongly agree).

When attitudes on energy efficiency were compared to income, several differences across groups

became apparent (Table 3-14).Except for the statement ―I care that my energy consumption today

will have an impact on future generations,‖ which all groups rated about the same, those in the

lowest income group ($0 to $30,000) were more likely to agree with the other four statements

than those in the middle and highest income groups. These four statements tend to express more

negative views on energy efficiency (i.e., energy efficiency is too much effort, personal comfort is

more important, etc), and those in the highest income group were more likely to disagree or

strongly disagree with these ―negative‖ statements on energy efficiency. Notably, the lowest

income group gave a rating of 5.9 for the statement ―My family‘s comfort is more important than

conserving energy,‖ while the highest income group gave a rating of 4.0 for the same statement.

This may be because those in the highest income bracket are able to afford more energy efficient

equipment than those in the lowest income bracket (e.g. buying a high efficiency furnace instead

of simply keeping the thermostat at a lower setting), making the disparity between comfort and

energy efficiency less apparent.


3-19


Table 3-14. Attitudes on Energy Efficiency Compared to Income (Means)15.

Less than

$30,000 (n=59) (A)

$30,000 to less than $75,000 (n=141)

(B)

$75,000 or greater (n=90)

(C)

Personal contribution to energy efficiency does not make a difference

3.6B,C

3.0C 2.0

I don't know how to make my home more energy efficient

4.2B,C

3.8C 2.7

My family's comfort is more important than conserving energy

5.9B,C

5.0C 4.0

Using energy efficient products and practices requires too much effort

2.8B,C

2.3C 1.5

I care that my energy consumption today will have an impact on future generations

8.8 8.9 8.8

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, questions A11A to A11E

Of several energy knowledge questions, more participants thought that heating their home used

the most energy (45%) but there was no general consensus on this. Twenty-two percent thought

that cooling the house used the most energy, and another 22 percent thought heating the water

used the most energy (see Figure 3-6). With regard to National Grid‘s New York Energy Efficiency

Programs that deal with home heating (e.g., High-Efficiency Heating and Water Heating and

Controls Program and Enhanced Home Sealing Incentives Program), customers might need to

understand that heating the house costs the most money and these programs will also contribute

to lowering cooling expenses.

15 A notation of B or C notes significance between means as compared to the highest income group, with columns A, B,

and C noted on the header of the table.


3-20


Figure 3-6. Home System that Requires Most Energy Usage (n = 393)

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, question A12.

Most participants thought that replacing an old refrigerator with a new ENERGY STAR refrigerator

could save over 100 dollars a year (94 percent). Similarly, most participants agreed that cell

phone chargers use energy when plugged in, even if the phone is not charging (89 percent).

As shown in Table 3-15, most participants indicated that they had taken one or more energy-

efficient actions. Most participants have purchased CFLs or energy-efficient lighting, and around

two-thirds had turned their water heater temperature down. Only three percent said they had not

done any of the actions provided.

Table 3-15. Adopted Energy Efficient Practices (n=403)

Responses Percent

Purchased energy efficient, compact fluorescent bulbs

357 88%

Turned down water heater temperature 260 65%

Installed a programmable thermostat 245 60%

Added insulation to attic/walls 218 54%

Had an energy efficiency audit performed 66 16%

None 11 3%

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, question A16.

3.8 DEMOGRAPHICS

All participants were asked a series of demographic questions. The majority of participants own

their homes (98 percent). In addition, a majority of homes are year-round, single-family dwellings

(98 and 93 percent, respectively). As shown in Table 3-16, only 18 percent of households contain


3-21


children less than 18 years old, while 48 percent of households contain individuals over 65 years

old. Participants reported living in their homes an average of 25.3 years. These findings suggest

that program participation is heaviest among older individuals without children (―empty-nesters‖).

Also supporting this finding is the number of households containing just one or two people (24

percent and 49 percent, respectively).

When it came to income, program participation was lowest among those in the highest and lowest

income brackets. Otherwise, participation was fairly consistent among the other income

categories.

Table 3-16. Household Characteristics

Number of people currently living in home (n=396) Reponses Percent

One 94 24%

Two 194 49%

Three 47 12%

Four 44 11%

Five 11 3%

Six 5 1%

Seven 1 <1%

Age of members of household (n=393)

Households with children less than 18 years old 71 18%

Households with members 18-24 years old 33 8%






2009 pre-tax household income (n=297)

Less than $10,000 6 2%

$10,000 to less than $20,000 33 11%

$20,000 to less than $30,000 24 8%

$30,000 to less than $40,000 39 13%

$40,000 to less than $50,000 56 19%

$50,000 to less than $75,000 48 16%

$75,000 to less than $100,000 41 14%

$100,000 to less than $150,000 33 11%

$150,000 to less than $200,000 11 4%

$200,000 or more 6 2%

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, questions D9 through D10

4-1


4. IMPACT EVALUATION FINDINGS

This section presents some of the impact related findings resulting from the process evaluation

completed for upstate New York customers. First, we present a summary of free ridership

estimates, followed by a snapshot of the actions that participants would have taken in the

absence of the program, and finally an analysis of the impact related questions.

4.1 SUMMARY OF FREE RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES

The telephone survey asked a series of questions designed to characterize what actions

participants would have taken in the absence of the program. Two methodologies were used to

calculate free ridership estimates, which yielded rates of 38 percent and 37 percent for

refrigerators and 41 percent and 35 percent for freezers (Table 4-1). Both methodologies followed

a similar pathway of survey questioning about likely actions in the absence of the program to

assess the likelihood that participants would have removed the appliance within a year, as well as

their likely future usage pattern or likely means of appliance removal. The second methodology

(FR2) introduced two likely barriers to removal in the absence of the program—the need to pay to

have the appliance removed and the need to physically remove the appliance from the home.

We consider Method 2 to be a more accurate measure of free ridership than Method 1 and

recommend using FR2 rates for program planning and impact analysis. Free ridership estimates

for each method and subgroup can be found in Table 4-1. Additional details on the methodologies

used to estimate free ridership can be found in Section 4.3.

Table 4-1. Free Ridership Estimates

n Method One n Method Two

Overall – Refrigerators 272 38% 272 37%

Removed primary refrigerator N/A N/A 60 35%

Removed and replaced appliance N/A N/A 66 35%

Removed and did not replace appliance

N/A N/A 146 39%

Overall – Freezers 133 41% 133 35%

Removed and replaced appliance N/A N/A 36 33%

Removed and did not replace appliance

N/A N/A 97 36%

4.2 DISPOSITION OF APPLIANCES IN ABSENCE OF THE PROGRAM

Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 provide a snapshot of the actions that participants would have taken in

the absence of the program. Among respondents who removed refrigerators through the program,

more than one out of four (27 percent) said that they would have continued to use the unit and

about one out of six (16 percent) would have kept the unit in use by selling it or giving it away.

About one in four (24 percent) would have taken the refrigerator out of use by trashing it or

keeping it unplugged in their home, and about one out of six (14 percent) would have gotten rid of

it in some other way. More than one out of ten respondents who removed refrigerators through the

program (12 percent) either hadn‘t considered removing it before the program or said they would

have postponed getting rid of it for at least a year.

4. Impact Evaluation Findings

4-2


Figure 4-1. Likely Disposition of Refrigerators in Absence of Program (n=272)

*Respondents who said they would remove the refrigerator without the program but

hadn‘t considered doing so before hearing about the program. **Respondents who would have gotten rid of the refrigerator in any manner more

than a year after the fridge was removed by the program. fr Respondents were considered free riders according to free ridership Method 1. nfr Respondents were considered non-free riders according to free ridership Method

1. pfr Respondents were considered possible free riders according to free ridership

Method 1.


4-3


Among respondents who removed freezers through the program, only about one out of ten (12

percent) said that they would have continued to use the unit, but more than one out of four (26

percent) would have kept the unit in use by selling it or giving it away. About one in four (27

percent) would have taken the refrigerator out of use by trashing it or keeping it unplugged in their

home, and about one out of six (15 percent) would have gotten rid of it in some other way. More

than one out of ten respondents who removed freezers through the program (13 percent) either

hadn‘t considered removing it before the program or said they would have postponed getting rid of

it for at least a year (Figure 4-2).

Figure 4-2. Likely Disposition of Freezers in Absence of Program (n=133)

*Respondents who said they would remove the freezer without the program but hadn‘t

considered doing so before hearing about the program. **Respondents who would have gotten rid of the freezer in any manner more than a year

after the freezer was removed by the program. fr Respondents were considered free riders according to free ridership Method 1. nfr Respondents were considered non-free riders according to free ridership Method 1. pfr Respondents were considered possible free riders according to free ridership Method

1.


4-4


Other key findings about respondents‘ reported intentions include:

About one out of five respondents who said they would have gotten rid of their refrigerator

(21 percent) and about one out of four respondents who said they would have gotten rid of

their freezer (27 percent) said that moving and transporting the appliance would have

prevented them from actually getting rid of it without the program.

As discussed in Chapter 3, 40 percent of those who said they would have gotten rid of

their refrigerator and a similar proportion of those who would have gotten rid of their

freezer (38 percent) claimed they would not pay anything to have it removed from their

home.

As discussed in Chapter 3, respondents indicated that the rebates were moderately

important to their decision to participate in the program. The average importance rating

(from 0-10) was 5.8. Nevertheless, 81 percent of the refrigerator group and 80 percent of

the freezer group said they would have participated even without any incentive. These

results could indicate that, although the rebate was a fairly important benefit of the

program, other benefits (such as getting the appliance removed for free and with little

hassle, knowing it will be recycled, etc.) might have been important enough without the

rebate to merit participating. It should be noted that financial incentives can be very

important in the initial consideration of a decision; however, if other benefits are also

realized after the decision is made the initial influence of the rebate might be minimized in

retrospect.

Forty-five percent of the respondents in the refrigerator group and twenty-seven percent of

the freezer group replaced the appliance they had turned in with another one of the same

type. Those who recycled a secondary refrigerator were less likely to replace it (34 percent,

compared to 95 percent of those recycling a primary refrigerator). Twenty-three percent of

those who replaced their secondary refrigerator replaced it with a used appliance. Of those

who replaced their secondary refrigerators with a new refrigerator, 89 percent bought an

ENERGY STAR qualified appliance.

Table 4-2. Replaced Recycled Appliance



Yes** 123 45% 36 27% 159 39%

No** 149 55% 97 73% 246 61%

Source: Recycling Program Participant Survey, questions RR1 and FE1

The majority of the replacement appliances were new (refrigerators: 86 percent, freezers:

89 percent) and for the most part had the ENERGY STAR® label (refrigerator: 80 percent,

freezer: 72 percent). Customers who replaced a refrigerator were significantly more likely

than those who replaced a freezer to report that their replacement appliance was ENERGY

STAR® rated (93 and 79 percent, respectively). Thus, although many of the respondents

replaced the appliance that was removed, limiting energy savings from the program, the

replacements tended to be newer and more energy-efficient than the previous ones.


4-5


4.3 DETAILED IMPACT RELATED QUESTION ANALYSIS

In order to better understand the customer decision-making process, respondents were asked why

they had participated in the program, how important the incentive had been in their decision to

participate, what they would have done with the appliance in the absence of the program, and

whether they had replaced the removed appliances with new ones.

Based on responses to these questions, we estimated the extent of free ridership for the program.

As Figure 4-3 shows, free riders (FRs) are considered to be participants who either would have

kept the unit unplugged in the absence of the program, or before learning about the program had

intended to remove the appliance within one year in a manner that would not have led to its being

used by someone else. Non-free riders (NFRs) are participants who either would have kept using

the appliance, would have removed the appliance more than one year after the program, or would

have removed the appliance in a manner that would have led to its use by someone else.

Appliances that replace appliances removed through the program (replacement appliances)

impact the energy savings of the program, but are not considered in estimating free ridership

rates.

Figure 4-3. Determination of Free Ridership Status

4.4 INITIAL ESTIMATION OF FREE RIDERSHIP RATES

We estimated free ridership rates two different ways (FR1 and FR2) for each appliance. For the

analysis of both FR1 and FR2, FR status was determined by questions about the intended

disposition of appliances in absence of the program.

FR1 used participants‘ responses to questions about the likely disposition of the appliances in the

absence of the program and were estimated in the following way: Respondents who said they

would have kept the appliance unplugged were considered to be free riders (FRs). Those who

would have disposed of the appliance without the program were considered to be non-free riders


4-6


(NFRs) if they said they would have sold it or given it away (as the appliance would still be in use).

In contrast, FRs said they would have recycled the unit, taken it to a trash dump, or had the

appliance picked up by a third party (i.e., a hauler or a retail store). Respondents who said they

would have disposed of the appliance more than a year from the time it was picked up by the

program were considered to be NFRs. In addition, respondents who said they had not considered

removing the appliance before they heard about the program, but later said they would have

either gotten rid of it without the program or that they would have kept it and continued using it,

were determined to be NFRs. Respondents who said ―don‘t know‖ to certain questions or gave

responses that didn‘t clearly determine their FR or NFR status were considered to be possible FRs

(PFRs).

A potential drawback of this method is that these initial responses might reflect respondents‘

wishes and attitudes rather than what they actually would have done. The ability to physically

move a large appliance and the financial costs associated with hiring a hauler are among the

barriers that might prevent people from removing the units despite the wish to do so.

FR2 rates were estimated along similar principles. However, to address the physical and financial

barriers that may have prevented people from removing the units, the analysis of FR2

incorporated two additional questions about the impact of physical and financial barriers on the

disposal decision. One of the questions asked how much, if anything, respondents would be willing

to pay a hauler or someone else to take away the appliance if the program were not available. The

second question asked whether the need to physically move and/or transport the appliance would

prevent them from getting rid of it. Respondents who said they would have hired a hauler to

remove the appliance but that they would not pay to do so, or that they would have trashed or

recycled the appliance but that the need to physically move and/or transport the appliance would

prevent them from getting rid of it, were determined to be NFRs for the FR2 analysis. Although we

recommend using FR2 rates for the impact analysis, in this report we present FR1 rates as well.

4.4.1 Initial Free Ridership Estimates

As shown in Table 4-3, the initial free ridership estimate (FR1) was 38 percent for refrigerators

and 41 percent for freezers. Among the refrigerator group, 56 percent were non-free riders (NFR)

and 6 percent were possible free riders (PFRs). Among the freezer group 53 percent were NFRs

and 6 percent were PFRs.

For FR2, responses to the two additional questions—how much respondents would pay for a

hauler and whether physically moving the appliance would prevent respondents from removing it—

were incorporated into the analysis. When these questions were incorporated into the analysis,

FR2 rates dropped slightly for refrigerators (from 38 percent to 37 percent) and more substantially

for freezers (from 41 percent to 35 percent).


4-7


Table 4-3. Free Ridership Estimates

Refrigerators (n=272) Freezers (n=133)

FR1 (free riders) 38% 41%

NFR1 (non-free riders) 56 53

PFR1 (possible free riders) 6 6




4.4.2 Primary versus Secondary Refrigerators—Free Ridership and Program Influence

The program requires that removed refrigerators have been used as secondary, not primary

refrigerators. Nevertheless, as shown in Table 4-4 more than two out of ten respondents (22

percent) in the refrigerator group removed a primary refrigerator. To gauge whether respondents

who had used the removed refrigerator as a primary refrigerator (the ―primary group‖) differed

from those who had used it as a secondary refrigerator (the ―secondary group‖)—in terms of free

ridership and the influence of the program on their disposition of the appliance—selected analyses

were performed for the two groups.

Table 4-4 shows that those who used the program to dispose of a primary refrigerator and those

who used it to dispose of a secondary refrigerator that they replaced were equally likely to be free

riders (35 percent for both). The FR2 estimate for secondary refrigerators that were not replaced

was slightly higher (39 percent).

Table 4-4. Refrigerator Free Ridership Estimates by Use and Replacement

Primary (n=60) Secondary—

Replaced (n=66) Secondary—Not Replaced (n=146)

FR2 (free riders) 35% 35% 39%

NFR2 (non-free riders) 55 56 58

PFR2 (possible free riders) 10 9 3

4.4.3 Replaced versus Not Replaced Freezers—Free Ridership and Program Influence

To gauge whether respondents who replaced their freezer (27 percent) differed from those who

did not replace their freezer (73 percent)—in terms of free ridership and the influence of the

program on their disposition of the appliance—selected analyses were performed for the two

groups. As Table 4-5 shows, the FR2 estimate for the 27 percent of the freezer group who

replaced the removed freezers was slightly lower than that for the 73 percent who did not replace

them (33 percent versus 36 percent).


4-8


Table 4-5. Freezer Free Ridership Estimates by Replacement

Replaced (n=36) Not Replaced (n=97)




5-1


5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overall, National Grid‘s Refrigerator-Freezer Recycling is functioning well. High satisfaction levels

among program staff and participants indicate that the program is doing a good job serving its

customer base, and program processes appear to generally function quite well.

Below are recommendations for retaining the high quality of the program, as well as several

recommendations to resolve any current issues or problems.

More strictly control pick-up of these appliances. Currently, the program does not allow primary

refrigerators to be recycled, yet based on participant self-report, 22 percent of refrigerators are

primary. While JACO‘s call center used a script to screen out customers who wanted to recycle a

primary refrigerator as ineligible, drivers found that 7 percent and 9 percent in 2010 and 2011,

respectively had scheduled a pick-up of a primary unit. As a result, National Grid is revising the

JACO call center script to reduce confusion about what constitutes a primary refrigerator, with

customers being told that primary units will not be eligible for pick-up. Additionally, the policy of no

primary units will be re-enforced with all JACO drivers.

National Grid and JACO are revising marketing materials to clearly state the requirements of the

program, as well as brainstorming methods to reduce ―gaming‖ of the system by customers. A

review of National Grid‘s marketing materials show that the secondary appliance requirement is

very clearly defined on the Power of Action website. However, it is not consistently mentioned as a

requirement of the program on all marketing materials (e.g. television advertisements). This may

indicate that a more direct approach in stating the requirements of the program may be needed

within the marketing materials (see Appendix E for examples of National Grid‘s marketing

materials). Designs for these revisions have begun that more clearly state the program‘s eligibility

for secondary appliances only.

Continue to work with JACO staff to both address confusion on program requirements, but also

gain their insight on any issues. Regular check-ins and meetings with implementation staff will

ensure that any confusion or questions on program requirements are addressed in a timely

matter. For example, based on early survey findings and examination of the JACO dashboard,

National Grid staff met with JACO to discuss the issue of the high percentage of primary

refrigerators being recycled, which are ineligible according to program design. In addition, JACO

staff may be able to give useful insight to issues within the program (for example, their staff may

be able to best gauge whether the primary refrigerator issue stems from confusion among the

pick-up staff or the customer base or both).

Reinforce screening efforts at the participant registration stage to screen out potential free riders.

While the free ridership estimates for the program were consistent with other evaluations and a

certain amount of free ridership is inevitable, any effort that can be made to screen out free riders

would result in higher net savings. To help reduce free ridership, the revised call center script

emphasizes program requirements that appliances be plugged in and working in order to be

considered eligible for the program. Additionally, the program has added a requirement that

screens out appliances that have not been used at all in the six months prior to the pick up to

eliminate this loss of savings and increase the likelihood of recycling secondary units.

Retain current rebate levels. Almost no participants indicated that they were dissatisfied with the

current rebate amount. In fact, 81 percent of participants indicated that they would have

participated in the program without the rebate altogether. However, JACO staff warned against

5. Summary And Recommendations

5-2


doing away with the rebate because it still remains an effective selling point and draw to

customers who may be on the fence as to whether to recycle their appliance or not.

Continue to use a multi-pronged marketing strategy to reach the target market. Participants

reported hearing of the program in multiple ways, with word-of-mouth was also noted as an

effective method. While a majority of participants indicated they preferred to hear about programs

via bill inserts, keeping up the current mix of marketing and advertising, and increasing the

number of campaigns will help to ensure that the program goals are met in 2011. Since free pick-

up of appliances was the main motivation for participation, marketing efforts should emphasize

this aspect of the program and the ease of removal, as well as the fact that the appliance is being

permanently recycled which is also important to participants.

Consider adding marketing efforts specifically targeted at ―empty-nesters.‖ While the current

marketing efforts appear to have been quite effective, program participants tend to be older,

childless adults. Target marketing to this population might help boost participation numbers. As

might be expected, this group does not frequently report emails or websites as preferred methods

of program communication. More often, participants over 65 prefer to receive program

information from bill inserts, newspapers, and direct mailings. While they were slightly more likely

to cite ―do not need or use anymore‖ as a reason for wanting to recycle their appliance through

the program, they were also more likely to have an appliance older than 17 years than

households of less than 65 years of age (76 percent vs. 58 percent, respectively).

Consider a leave-behind that includes education on ENERGY STAR appliances and information on

other residential programs. When JACO picks up the appliance, they leave behind a sheet of

information about the recycling process. Because the target market for this program are

customers concerned about a good return on investment (according to interviews with program

staff), the participant population for this program may be appropriate for other residential

programs. National Grid may want to consider the possibility of promoting their other programs in

this leave-behind material. Additionally, a little less than one-half of recycled refrigerators were

replaced, compared with slightly more than one-fourth of freezers. Among customers replacing

their appliance, most replaced their appliance with a new one. The program should seek to

reinforce the choices made by participants by emphasizing how much energy and money they

saved by getting rid of their inefficient model and will continue to save if they do not replace the

appliance. If customers choose to replace the appliance, the program should encourage them to

consider the more efficient ENERGY STAR labeled units.

JACO should continue to investigate techniques to reduce the number of participants who cancel

their pickup date or drop out of the program. While JACO estimates that approximately 16 percent

of customers change their scheduled appointments or drop-out of the program after signing up,

only 4 percent do not show up for their appointment. While in line with their experiences in other

parts of the country, additional steps to retain or re-recruit customers have been undertaken to

help the program reach its goal. These steps include calling the customer two weeks before the

scheduled date, sending a reminder postcard, and calling customers to re-recruit them into the

program. Additionally, National Grid is not charged for those customers who miss their appliance

pick-up.

Avoid the creation of secondary appliances Should National Grid ever offer an appliance

replacement program in New York, National Grid should consider requiring that replaced

appliances are recycled at the time of new appliance purchase.

A-1


APPENDIX A: PROGRAM PROCESS FLOW MAP

B-1


APPENDIX B: PROGRAM STAFF INTERVIEW GUIDE

Refrigerator-Freezer Recycling Program/Implementation Staff Interview Guide

This instrument is a guide to be used when conducting qualitative in-depth interviews with

program staff and the program implementation contractor. Not all questions are applicable for all

persons interviewed.

Interview Objectives:

Identify program activities, inputs (resources), outputs, short to medium term outcomes and

long term outcomes for use in developing program logic models

Identify important influences on program operation and achievements

Identify issues that should be incorporated into customer surveys

Characterize program operations including staffing and subcontracting, budgets, outreach

activities and marketing, types of persons served, and other stakeholders involved

Identify areas that need improvement

A. Describe your role with the program

1) Describe your responsibilities regarding the refrigerator recycling program in Upstate

New York?

when became involved

(JACO) Have you been involved with this type of program in other states or for

other utilities? If so, how did you use that experience to aid the start up in New

York?

2) Please describe the other staff within National Grid and JACO who are involved in

managing/implementing this program (e.g., data entry, pick up crew, marketing):

number of people, their locations, their responsibilities

B. Program Design and Marketing

1) What was your involvement in the program design?

Was the program patterned after another program(s)? If so, were any

modifications made to improve the program design?

2) What are the program goals?

How are the program goals communicated to you and from you to others (staff,

JACO)?

Do you expect the program will achieve its 2010 goals? If not, why not? What

are the biggest challenges that you face?

3) Can you briefly describe how the program operates?

What is the sequence of steps for participation?

What is the sequence of steps for implementation?

For rebate delivery?

What happens to the recycled appliances?

B:. Program Staff Interview Guide

B-2


4) Please describe the target market.

5) How is the program being marketed to customers/retailers?

How effective do you feel each of these methods has been in identifying and

enrolling potential participants?

What additional marketing and outreach is needed?

6) What are major barriers to participation?

Are the marketing/recruitment efforts designed to build on customers‘

reasons for participation and minimize reasons for nonparticipation?

What percent of customers choose not to participate after expressing initial

interest? Why is that?

7) How are your program costs being tracked? (Probe: Examples of costs are staff

resources, incentives, implementation, and marketing materials.)

8) How is participation uptake and experiences as compared to your programs in New

York and in other states? If different than expected, why do you think this is?

9) Do customers understand who is sponsoring the program? Is there any confusion with

the previous NYSERDA program?

C. Program Operations

1) How much flexibility do you have in implementing the program?

2) Describe your communications and working relationship with the National Grid

program manager/implementation contractor.

(JACO) Is National Grid support sufficient?

Are program requirements clearly understood?

In what areas could support and/or communications be improved?

3) Do you feel you have sufficient staffing resources to efficiently deliver the program? If

not, what additional resources are needed?

4) In your opinion, what is the level of customer satisfaction with the various aspects of

the program (participation process, rebate level, rebate delivery, length of time for

pickup, etc.)? How can satisfaction be improved?

5) What aspects of the program implementation are working well? Which are not working

well?

6) Do the incentive levels seem appropriate? If not, why not? What, if any, changes in the

incentive levels do you think may be needed?

7) Can you describe any training efforts that your firm conducts with your own staff about

the Upstate National Grid New York Refrigerator Recycling Program? Please describe

the objectives of the training? How, if at all, is this training different for this program as

B:. Program Staff Interview Guide

B-3


compared to other recycling programs? Who delivers the training? Who is the target

audience? What is the primary purpose of the training? How effective have these

trainings been? Will these change in the future? Why?

8) How do you handle situations where the equipment to be picked up is not eligible for

this program? In what instances will a refrigerator or freezer not qualify for the

program?

9) What do you see as future challenges to the program?

D. Quality Control.

1) What types of Quality Control activities, if any, are being done (probe on timing and

amount)? Who is responsible for this? Suggestions for improvement?

2) How are customer complaints documented reported, and resolved?

How many customer complaints are registered as a percent of total

participants to-date?

What is the nature of these complaints?

E. Program Database and Tracking.

1) Who is responsible for updating the tracking system? How often is this done?

2) Who is responsible for tracking system checks and corrections? How are checks and

corrections done?

3) How often do you prepare reports or updates for others in National Grid? What types of

regular reports or updates do you provide? Is all data that you collect entered into the

tracking system?

4) Have there been any difficulties with the program tracking system?

F. Evaluation

1) What do you hope to learn from this evaluation?

2) Do you have any specific questions that you want to make sure are included in primary

data collection activities with customers?

G. Other Suggestions for Improvement?

1) Lastly, if you could change one thing about the program, what would that be? How

would you improve the program?

C-1


APPENDIX C: PARTICIPANT SURVEY INSTRUMENT

[SURVEY INSTRUMENT SECTIONS]

Introduction

Source of Program Information

Experience and Satisfaction with the Program

Refrigerator Questions

Refrigerator Free Ridership Questions

Refrigerator Payment Questions

Refrigerator Replacement Questions

Remaining Refrigerator Questions

Freezer Questions

Freezer Free Ridership Questions

Freezer Payment Questions

Freezer Replacement Questions

Remaining Freezer Questions

Energy Awareness

Housing and Demographics

[SAMPLE INFORMATION FROM PARTICIPANT RECORDS TO BE FILLED INTO QUESTIONNAIRE

Measure recycled: [recycled]

1=Refrigerator

2=Freezers

Quantity of measures: [Qty]

Location: [Address]

Date of appliance pick-up: [Date]

Amount of rebate: [Incentive amount]

NOTE: For all questions, ―Don‘t know‖ and ―Refused‖ will be options. These will not be read.

C:. Participant Survey Instrument

C-2


C1 Hello, my name is [interviewer name], and I'm calling on behalf of National Grid. May I

speak with [named respondent]? INTERVIEWER NOTE: CUSTOMERS MAY THINK THAT

NIAGARA MOHAWK IS THEIR UTILITY. NIAGARA MOHAWK WAS ACQUIRED BY NATIONAL

GRID.

1 Yes

2 No [If named respondent is not available: ask for another adult who is familiar with

the household’s recent recycling of your [measure]]

C2 I'm with Tetra Tech, an independent research firm. We are speaking with households

about a program offered by National Grid called the Refrigerator-Freezer Recycling

Program. Did your household participate in this program?

[IF UNSURE: You may also know National Grid as Niagara Mohawk.]

1 Yes [SKIP TO C6]

2 No

C3 [IF C2=2] You may have participated around [date]. Through this program, you could have

received $30 plus free pickup of an old refrigerator and/or freezer. Do you recall receiving

a payment and having a refrigerator and/or freezer picked up and taken away through the

program?

1 Yes [SKIP TO C6]

2 No

C4 [IF C3=2] Is it possible that someone else in your household would be familiar with the

Refrigerator-Freezer Recycling program?

1 Yes

2 No [THANK AND TERMINATE]

D DON‘T KNOW [THANK AND TERMINATE]

R REFUSED [THANK AND TERMINATE]

C5 May I please speak with that person?

1 Yes [BEGIN THE SURVEY AGAIN (C2) WITH NEW R]

2 No [THANK AND TERMINATE]

D DON‘T KNOW [THANK AND TERMINATE]

R REFUSED [THANK AND TERMINATE]

Introduction


C-3


Great, thank you. You should have received a letter a couple of days ago explaining the purpose of

this call. I‘d like to assure you that I'm not selling anything; I'd just like to ask your opinion about

this program. Your responses will be kept confidential. The information that you provide will help

National Grid to improve its programs. For quality and training purposes this call will be recorded.

[ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IF NECESSARY]

(Who is National Grid? Niagara Mohawk is part of National Grid, an energy delivery company

serving upstate New York. They administer energy efficiency programs including the Refrigerator-

Freezer Recycling Program in which you participated in 2010.)

(Timing: This survey should take about 15 minutes. IF NOT A GOOD TIME, SET UP CALL BACK

APPOINTMENT OR OFFER TO LET THEM CALL US BACK AT 1-800-454-5070.)

(Sales concern: This is not a sales call; we would simply like to learn about your household‘s

experiences with National Grid‘s Refrigerator-Freezer Recycling Program. Your responses will be

kept confidential. If you would like to talk with someone at National Grid regarding this survey,

please call Jill Falk at 781-907-2231.)

C6 Could you please confirm that you received a rebate for recycling:

A. [IF MEASURE=1] [Qty] refrigerators through the Refrigerator-Freezer Recycling Program?

B. [IF MEASURE=2] [Qty] freezers through the Refrigerator-Freezer Recycling Program?

1 Yes/correct

2 No [SPECIFY: What is incorrect?]

C6R_COR [IF REFRIGERATOR] What is incorrect?

1 Recycled one freezer, not a refrigerator

2 Recycled two freezers, and no refrigerators

3 Recycled other quantity of refrigerators

4 Did not recycle any appliances (THANK AND TERMINATE)

C6R_QTY How many refrigerators did you recycle?

__ RECORD RESPONSE

C6F_COR [IF FREEZER] What is incorrect?

1 Recycled one refrigerator, not a freezer

2 Recycled two refrigerators, and no freezers

3 Recycled other quantity of freezers

4 Did not recycle any appliances (THANK AND TERMINATE)

C6F_QTY How many freezers did you recycle?

__ RECORD RESPONSE


C-4


[CORRECT SAMPLE FLAGS BASED ON ANSWERS TO C6R_COR – C6F_QTY]

[IF INCORRECT AND DIDN‘T RECEIVE REBATE FOR ANY MEASURES, THANK AND TERMINATE]

C7 Were you personally involved in the decision of whether or not recycle [measure] for a

payment through the Recycling Program?

1 Yes

2 No [SPECIFY: May I speak with the person who made this decision?] [SKIP BACK

TO C2]

P1 How did you hear about the payment for [turning in a refrigerator/freezer] available

through the Recycling Program?

[DO NOT READ; ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSES, BUT DO NOT PROBE FOR MULTIPLE

RESPONSES]

1 National Grid /Niagara Mohawk Electric Company(call center)

2 National Grid (utility bill insert)

3 National Grid (email newsletter)

4 National Grid website or Power of Action Website

5 3% Initiative/mailing

6 From participation in another National Grid program [SPECIFY PROGRAM]

7 Direct mailing from National Grid

8 Builder

9 Retail store/Dealer (e.g., Sears, Home Depot, Lowes)

10 Home show/conference/trade show

11 Realtor

12 Newspaper

13 Radio

14 Television

15 Friend/family member

16 Other [SPECIFY]

P2 How would you prefer to receive information from National Grid about their energy

efficiency programs? [SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]

1 Utility bill insert

2 Email newsletter

3 National Grid Website or Power of Action website

4 Direct mailing

5 Contractor

6 Radio

7 Newspaper

8 Other [SPECIFY]

Source of Program Information


C-5


P3 Do you think the refrigerators or freezers that are picked up by the program are recycled,

resold, repaired and resold, put in a landfill, or something else?

1 Recycled

2 Resold

3 Repaired and Resold

4 Put in a landfill

5 Other [SPECIFY]

P4 [IF P3=1] On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being not at all important and 10 being very

important, how important was it to you that the refrigerators or freezers are recycled,

rather than being put in a landfill or resold?

______

[IF MEASURE NE 1, GO TO FZ1 (FREEZERS)]

Now, I‘d like you to think about the refrigerator you had removed through the program.

[IF QTY>1] I know you had [QTY] refrigerators removed through the program. For purposes of this

survey, please think about the [RANDOMLY CHOOSE ONE OF THE REFRIGERATORS FROM

SAMPLE. INSERT DESCRIPTIVE FIELDS FROM DATABASE.]

[INSERT COLOR] (Unit color) unit,

With [INSERT TYPEDETAIL] (Side by side doors, Top freezer, bottom freezer)

That was manufactured by [INSERT BRANDUNITMAKE]

That was located in your [INSERT LOCPRIOR] prior to pick-up.

Keep only that one refrigerator clearly in your mind as you answer the next few questions.

RF1 Was the refrigerator removed through the recycling program your primary refrigerator, a

second refrigerator that was being used at least part of the time, or a refrigerator that was

not being used at all? [IF CLARIFICATION IS NECESSARY: ―A main or primary refrigerator

would typically be located in the kitchen, plugged in or ―on‖ all the time, and used for

regular household purposes. A secondary or spare refrigerator is typically located

somewhere other than in the kitchen and may be plugged in or ―on‖ all or only part of the

time.‖ [NOTE: If respondent recently bought a new refrigerator and was just waiting for the

previously used one to be picked up by the program, it should be classified as

―Main/Primary‖]

1 Used as Main/Primary

2 Used as a Spare/Secondary at date of pickup

3 Not being used

Refrigerator Questions


C-6


RF2 Approximately how old was the refrigerator you had removed through the program? Was it

[READ, CHECK ONE]:

1 0 to 5 years old

2 6 to 10 years old

3 11 to 16 years old


5 More than 20 years old

RF3 [IF RF1=2] How long had you been using this unit as a secondary refrigerator?

____ Years

RF5 How would you describe the condition of the refrigerator when you decided to have it

picked up by this recycling program? Would you say… (READ LIST)

1 It worked and was in good physical condition

2 It worked but needed some minor repairs such as a gasket seal or handle

3 It worked but had some bigger problems such as the motor or cooling system

4 It did not work

RF6 In the year prior to getting rid of the refrigerator, did you have the refrigerator plugged in all

the time, most of the time, during certain months of year, occasionally, or never?

1 All the time

2 Most of time

3 During certain months of the year (SPECIFY MONTHS)

4 Occasionally, such as for special events

5 Never

RF7 [IF RF6 = 2, 3, 4] During the past 12 months, approximately how many months was your

secondary refrigerator plugged in and running?

__ RECORD RESPONSE

RF8 Where in the house was the refrigerator located?

1 Basement

2 Kitchen

3 Garage

4 Porch/Patio

5 Laundry room

6 Yard

7 Some other place [SPECIFY_____________________]


C-7


RF9 Is the space where the refrigerator was located heated in the winter?

1 Yes

2 No

RF10 Is the space where the refrigerator was located cooled in the summer?

1 Yes

2 No

RR1 Did you replace the refrigerator that you turned in through the Recycling Program?

1 Yes

2 No [GO TO RFR1]

3 Don‘t know [GO TO RFR1]

RR2 Was the replacement refrigerator new or used when you started using it as the

replacement refrigerator?

1 New

2 Used

RR4 Does your replacement refrigerator have the ENERGY STAR label? There would usually be

a blue and white sticker on the appliance that says ―ENERGY STAR.‖

1 Yes

2 No

Please continue thinking about just that one refrigerator.

RFR1 Had you already considered disposing of the refrigerator before you heard about National

Grid‘s Recycling Program? By dispose of, I mean getting the appliance out of your home by

selling it, giving it away, having someone pick it up, or taking it to the dump or a recycling

center yourself.

1 Yes

2 No

Refrigerator Replacement Questions

Refrigerator Free Ridership Questions


C-8


RFR2 Why did you decide to get rid of the refrigerator through the Recycling Program? [DO NOT

READ; MULTIPLE RESPONSE]

Age/Need

1 (Old unit was not working well)

2 (Didn‘t need/use it any more)

Replacing unit

3 (Bought new refrigerator)

Housing change

4 (Remodeling/expanding)

5 (Moving soon/just moved)

Financial

6 (Reduce energy/electricity costs)

7 (Rebate/incentive)

8 (Cost too much to have it picked up)

9 (Did not want to pay disposal fee at dump/recycling center)

10 (Reduce maintenance costs/appliance needed repairs)

Logistical

11 (Easy/convenient to turn it in)

12 (They would pick it up)

13 (Trash collection would not accept)

Energy/Environment

14 (Better for the environment)

15 (Wanted to recycle)

16 (Save energy/electricity)

Other

17 (Other [SPECIFY_______________])

RFR3 If the Recycling Program had not been available to you, what would you most likely have

done with your refrigerator? Would you have gotten rid of it in any manner or kept it?

1 Gotten rid of it in any manner

2 Kept it [SKIP TO RFR11]

D Don‘t Know [SKIP TO RP1]

R Refused [SKIP TO RP1]

[ASK IF RFR3=1 (Gotten rid of it)]

RFR4 If the Recycling Program had not been available, how soon do you think you would you

have gotten rid of your refrigerator? Would you have gotten rid of it within a year of when

the Program took it, or more than a year later?

1 Within a year of when the program took it

2 More than a year later


C-9


RFR5 If the Recycling Program had not been available to you, what would you have done to get

rid of the refrigerator? Most likely, would you have: [RANDOMIZE AND READ 1-6, THEN 7,

ALLOW ONLY ONE RESPONSE]

1 Sold it [GO TO RFR8]

2 Given it away for free [GO TO RFR8]

3 Recycled it [GO TO RFR7a]

4 Taken it to a garbage dump or put out as trash [GO TO RFR8]

5 Hired hauler to take it away [GO TO RFR5a]

6 Had a retail store come and pick it up [GO TO RFR5a]

7 Or would you have done something else? [SPECIFY]__________________] [GO TO

RFR5a]

D (Don‘t know) [GO TO RFR5a]

[ASK IF RFR5=5, 6, 7, or DK]

RFR5a As far as you know, would the refrigerator have been recycled, sold for scrap, or sent to a

garbage dump?

1 Recycled

2 Sold as a used appliance

3 Sold as scrap

4 Sent to garbage dump

5 Other (SPECIFY)

[ASK IF RFR5=3 (Recycled it)]

RFR7a How would you have recycled the refrigerator? Would you have taken it to a recycling

center, put it out for recycling pick-up, hired someone to take it to be recycled, or done

something else? [READ; ALLOW ONLY ONE RESPONSE]

1 Take it to a recycling center

2 Put it out for pick-up

3 Hired someone to take it

4 Done something else [SPECIFY] _________

[ASK IF RFR3=1(Would have gotten rid of unit)]

RFR8 If the Recycling Program had not been available, would the need to physically move the

refrigerator out of your house and/or transport it have prevented you from getting rid of it?

1 Yes

2 No

3 Maybe

RFR9 If the Recycling Program had not been available, how much, if anything, would you have

been willing to pay your city, town, or someone else to remove or recycle your refrigerator

for you?

1 $0—Would not pay any amount

2 [RECORD DOLLARS $1 to $999] $_______


C-10


D (Don‘t know) [PROBE: ‗CAN YOU GIVE AN APPROXIMATE ESTIMATE OF HOW MUCH

YOU WOULD PAY?‘]

[ASK IF RFR3=2 OR RFR10=1(Would keep)]

RFR11 You said that you would have kept the refrigerator in the absence of the Recycling

program. Would you have:

1. Continued to use the refrigerator or

2. Would you have stored it unplugged?

3. Or would you have done something else?

RFR11A [IF RFR11 = 3] What would you have done?

1 Gotten rid of it in any way [IF RFR3 = 2, SKIP BACK TO RFR3. IF RFR10 = 1, SKIP

BACK TO RFR10 AND RECONFIRM]

2 Something else [SPECIFY]

I am now going to ask you some questions about the $30 rebate you received for recycling this

same refrigerator.

RP1 Using a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is ‗not at all important‘ and 10 is ‗extremely

important‘, how important was the $30 rebate in your decision to recycle the refrigerator?

[RECORD NUMBER]

RP1A Using a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is ‗not at all important‘ and 10 is ‗extremely

important‘, how important was the information you received about how much you could

reduce your energy bill by recycling your old appliance?

[RECORD NUMBER]

RP1B Using a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is ‗not at all important‘ and 10 is ‗extremely

important‘, how important was the free pick-up of your appliance through the program?

[RECORD NUMBER]

RP2 Would you have participated in the recycling program without the $30 rebate check

altogether?

1 Yes

2 No

3 Maybe

Refrigerator Payment Questions


C-11


RP3 After you had your refrigerator(s) picked-up, how many weeks did it take to receive the

rebate check from the program?

1 Less than 1 week

2 Between 1 to 2 weeks



5 More than 4 weeks (SPECIFY WEEKS)

6 Have not received the rebate check yet

RRF1 How many refrigerators are currently in use in your home after you removed the

refrigerator(s) through the program?

[RECORD NUMBER]_____ [RECORD NUMBER] [IF 0 GO TO FZ1 (Freezer Series)].

RRF2a through RRF2c [FOR EACH REFRIGERATOR, ASK ―Approximately how old is your

refrigerator.‖ [IF MORE THAN ONE REFRIGERATOR, ASK ABOUT UP TO THREE

REFRIGERATORS INSERTING ―first‖, ―second,‖ or ―third‖ BEFORE ―refrigerator‖ AS

APPROPRIATE.]

1 0 to 5 years old

2 6 to 10 years old




6 Don‘t know [PROBE: ‗CAN YOU GIVE AN APPROXIMATE AGE?‘]

[IF MEASURE NE 2, SKIP TO Next Section (Spillover Series)]

[READ IF QTY = 1] Now, I‘d like you to think about the stand-alone freezer you had removed

through the program.

[READ IF QTY > 1] I know you had [QTY] stand-alone freezers removed through the program. For

purposes of this survey, please think about the [RANDOMLY CHOOSE ONE OF THE FREEZERS

FROM SAMPLE AND INSERT DESCRIPTIVE FIELDS.]

[INSERT COLOR] (Unit color) unit,

That was manufactured by [INSERT BRANDUNITMAKE]

That was located in your [INSERT LOCPRIOR] prior to pick-up.

Keep only that one stand-alone freezer clearly in your mind as you answer the next few questions.

Remaining Refrigerator Questions

Freezer Questions


C-12


FZ1 In the year prior to getting rid of the freezer, did you have the freezer plugged in all the

time, most of the time, during certain months of year, occasionally, or never?

1 All the time

2 Most of time

3 During certain months of the year (SPECIFY MONTHS)

4 Occasionally, such as for special events

5 Never

FZ1A [IF FZ1 = 2, 3, 4] During the past 12 months, approximately how many months was your

freezer plugged in and running?

__ RECORD RESPONSE

FZ2 Approximately how old was the freezer you had removed through the program? Was it

[READ, CHECK ONE]:

1 0 to 5 years old

2 6 to 10 years old




6 Don‘t know [PROBE: ‗CAN YOU GIVE AN APPROXIMATE AGE?‘]

FZ4 [IF FZ1 = 5 (Never used)] Approximately how long had the freezer been unused when you

decided to get rid of it? [RECORD]

1 Months [RECORD 1 to 11 months]

2 Years [RECORD 1 to 50 years; round to the nearest year]

3 Don‘t know [PROBE: ‗CAN YOU GIVE AN APPROXIMATE LENGTH OF USE?‘]

[IF FZ1=5 GO TO FE1-Replacement Freezer Series]

FZ5 [IF FZ1 NE 5 (Used at least occasionally or DK/Ref)] Approximately how long had you been

using the freezer when you decided to get rid of it? [RECORD]

[NOTE: RESPONDENT SAID THE APPLIANCE WAS __ MONTHS/YEARS OLD. IF NEEDED,

PROBE: ―I know you said your appliance was __ months/years old. How many of those __

months/years did you use it?‖]

1 Months [RECORD 1 to 11 months]

2 Years [RECORD 1 to 50 years; round to the nearest year]

3 Don‘t know [PROBE: ‗CAN YOU GIVE AN APPROXIMATE TIME OF USE?‘]


C-13


FZ3 How would you describe the condition of the freezer when you decided to have it picked up

by this recycling program? Would you say… (READ LIST)

1 It worked and was in good physical condition

2 It worked but needed some minor repairs such as a gasket seal or handle

3 It worked but had some bigger problems such as the motor or cooling system

4 It did not work

FZ7 Where in the house was the freezer located?

1 Basement

2 Kitchen

3 Garage

4 Porch/Patio

5 Laundry room

6 Yard

7 Some other place [SPECIFY_____________________]

FZ8 Is the space where the freezer was located heated in the winter?

1 Yes

2 No

FZ9 Is the space where the freezer was located cooled in the summer?

1 Yes

2 No

FE1 Did you get another freezer to replace the one you turned in through the Recycling

Program?

1 Yes

2 No [GO TO FFR1]

3 Don‘t know [GO TO FFR1]

FE2 Was the replacement freezer new or used when you started using it as the replacement

freezer?

1 New

2 Used

FE4 Does your replacement freezer have the ENERGY STAR label? There would usually be a

blue and white sticker on the appliance that said ―ENERGY STAR.‖

1 Yes

2 No

Replacement Freezer Questions


C-14


Please continue thinking about just that one freezer.

FFR1 Had you already considered disposing of the freezer before you heard about National

Grid‘s Recycling Program? By dispose of, I mean getting the appliance out of your home by

selling it, giving it away, having someone pick it up, or taking it to the dump or a recycling

center yourself?

1 Yes

2 No

FFR2 Why did you decide to get rid of the freezer through the Recycling Program? [DO NOT

READ; MULTIPLE RESPONSES ALLOWED]

Age/Need

1 (Old unit was not working well)

2 (Didn‘t need/use it any more)

Replacing unit

3 (Bought new refrigerator)

Housing change

4 (Remodeling/expanding)

5 (Moving soon/just moved)

Financial

6 (Reduce energy/electricity costs)

7 (Rebate/incentive)

8 (Cost too much to have it picked up)

9 (Did not want to pay disposal fee at dump/recycling center)

10 (Reduce maintenance costs/appliance needed repairs)

Logistical

11 (Easy/convenient to turn it in)

12 (They would pick it up)

13 (Trash collection would not accept)

Energy/Environment

14 (Better for the environment)

15 (Wanted to recycle)

16 (Save energy/electricity)

Other

17 (Other [SPECIFY_______________])

Freezer Free Ridership Questions


C-15


FFR3 If the Recycling Program had not been available to you, what would you most likely have

done with your freezer? Would you have [READ]:

1 Gotten rid of it in any manner

2 Kept it [SKIP TO FFR11]

D Don‘t know [SKIP FB1]

R Refused [SKIP FB1]

[ASK IF FFR3=1 (Gotten rid of it)]

FFR4 If the Recycling Program had not been available, how soon do you think you would you

have gotten rid of your freezer? Would you have gotten rid of it within a year of when the

Program took it, or more than a year later?

1 Within a year of when the program took it

2 More than a year later

FFR5 If the Recycling Program had not been available to you, what would you have done to get

rid of the freezer? Most likely, would you have: [RANDOMIZE AND READ 1-6, THEN 7,

ALLOW ONLY ONE RESPONSE]

1 Sold it [GO TO FFR8]

2 Given it away for free [GO TO FFR8]

3 Recycled it [GO TO FFR7a]

4 Taken it to a garbage dump or put out as trash [GO TO FFR8]

5 Hired hauler to take it away [GO TO FFR5a]

6 Had a retail store come and pick it up [GO TO FFR5a]

7 Or would you have done something else? [SPECIFY]__________________] [GO TO

FFR5a]

D (Don‘t know) [GO TO FFR5a]

[ASK IF FFR5=5, 6, 7, or 98 DK]

FFR5aAs far as you know, would the freezer have been recycled, sold for scrap, or sent to a

garbage dump?

1 Recycled

2 Sold as a used appliance

3 Sold as scrap

4 Sent to garbage dump

5 Other (SPECIFY)

[ASK IF FFR5=3 (Recycled it)]

FFR7a How would you have recycled the freezer? Would you have taken it to a recycling center,

put it out for recycling pick-up, hired someone to take it to be recycled, or done something

else?

1 Take it to a recycling center

2 Put out for pick-up

3 Hired someone to take it

4 Done something else [SPECIFY] _________


C-16


[ASK IF FFR3=1(Would have gotten rid of unit)]

FFR8 If the Recycling Program had not been available, would the need to physically move the

freezer out of your house and/or transport it have prevented you from getting rid of it?

1 Yes

2 No

3 Maybe

FFR9 If the Recycling Program had not been available, how much, if anything, would you have

been willing to pay your city, town, or someone else to remove or recycle your freezer for

you?

1 $0—Would not pay any amount

2 [RECORD DOLLARS $1 to $999] $_______

3 Don‘t know [PROBE: ‗CAN YOU GIVE AN APPROXIMATE ESTIMATE OF HOW MUCH

YOU WOULD PAY?‘]

[ASK IF FFR3=2 OR FFR10=1 (Would keep)]

FFR11 You said that you would have kept the freezer in the absence of the Recycling program.

Would you have:

1 continued to use the refrigerator or

2 would you have stored it unplugged

3. Or would you have done something else?

FFR11A [IF FFR11 = 3] What would you have done?

1 Gotten rid of it in any way [IF FFR3 = 2, SKIP BACK TO FFR3. IF FFR10 = 1, SKIP

BACK TO FFR10 AND RECONFIRM]

2 Something else [SPECIFY]

I am now going to ask you some questions about the $30 rebate you received for recycling this

same freezer.

FB1 Using a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is ‗not at all important‘ and 10 is ‗extremely

important‘, how important was the $30 rebate in your decision to recycle the freezer?

[RECORD NUMBER]

FB1A Using a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is ‗not at all important‘ and 10 is ‗extremely

important‘, how important was the information you received about how much you could

reduce your energy bill by recycling your old appliance in your decision to recycle the

freezer?

Freezer Payment Questions


C-17


[RECORD NUMBER]

FB1B Using a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is ‗not at all important‘ and 10 is ‗extremely

important‘, how important was the free pick-up of your appliance through the program in

your decision to recycle the freezer?

[RECORD NUMBER]

FB2 Would you have participated in the recycling program without the $30 rebate check?

1 Yes

2 No

3 Maybe

FB3 After you had your freezer(s) picked-up, how many weeks did it take to receive the rebate

check from the program?

1 Less than 1 week




5 More than 4 weeks (SPECIFY WEEKS)

6 Have not received the rebate check yet

RFZ1 How many stand-alone freezers are currently in use in your home?

[RECORD NUMBER] [IF 0 GO TO FB3].

RBZ2a through RFZ2c. [FOR EACH FREEZER, ASK ―Approximately how old is your freezer.‖ [IF

MORE THAN ONE FREEZER, ASK ABOUT UP TO THREE FREEZERS INSERTING ―first‖,

―second,‖ or ―third‖ BEFORE ―freezer‖ AS APPROPRIATE.]

1 0 to 5 years old

2 6 to 10 years old




6 Don‘t know) [PROBE: ‗CAN YOU GIVE AN APPROXIMATE AGE?‘]

Remaining Freezer Questions


C-18


SO2 Since participating in the Recycling program, have you taken any additional actions to save

energy in your home? [PROBE: this might include turning off things when not in use;

changed your heating, cooling or water heating use; purchasing energy efficient

equipment, or something else to save energy.] [DO NOT READ; INDICATE ALL THAT APPLY]

NO ACTIONS

0a. No, have not taken any additional actions [SKIP TO SO3]

TURN OFF THINGS WHEN NOT IN USE

1a. Turn off Lights

1b. Turn off Television, stereos

1c. Turn off Computers

1d. Turn off or unplug chargers, small electronics, or appliances

1e. Turn off waterbed heater

1f. Turn off other equipment

1g. Other [SPECIFY]

CHANGE HEATING AND COOLING USE

2a. Raise thermostat setting for cooling

2b. Use air conditioner less often

2c. Lower thermostat setting for heat

2d. Turn down/up thermostat at night and when home is not occupied

2e. Don't heat/cool unused rooms

2f. Shade windows to keep house cool

2g. Clean or replace furnace filter regularly

2h. Run humidifier less often

2i. Heat with other sources a little more – woodstove, pellet stove, etc

2j. Other [SPECIFY]

CHANGE WATER AND HOT WATER USE, WASHING MACHINE

3a. Lower hot water temperature

3b. Wash clothes with cold water

3c. Wash clothes with full load

3d. Dry with full load

3e. Dry clothes on line or rack

3f. Use the energy saver setting for the dishwasher

3g. Run dishwasher only when full

3h. Other [SPECIFY]

REFRIGERATOR CHANGES

4a. Disconnect second refrigerator or freezer

4b. Keep refrigerator full

4c. Vacuum refrigerator coils

4d. Turn on refrigerator energy saver switch

4e. Turn up temperature setting in refrigerator or freezer

4f. Other [SPECIFY]

Spillover Questions


C-19


COOKING MEASURES

5a. Thaw food before cooking

5b. Use the microwave

5c. Cover pots with lids when heating

5d. Turn down burner when boiling point is reached

5e. Other [SPECIFY]

PURCHASED OR INSTALLED SOMETHING

6a. CFLs, energy efficient lights

6b. Power strip

6c. Caulking and weatherstripping

6d. Plastic on windows

6e. Install new windows

6f. Motion sensors and/or timers on outside lights

6g. Energy efficient appliances (Energy Star)

6h. Solar water heating

6i. Solar photovoltaics

6j. Add insulation

6k. Thermal blanket for water heater

6l. Other, specify

OTHER

7a. Specify

SO2A Did your participation in the Recycling Program influence you to take these other energy

efficiency actions?

1 Yes

2 No

SO3 Would you say that your energy usage has decreased a lot, decreased a little, stayed about

the same, increased a little, or increased a lot after participating in the Recycling Program?

1 Decreased a lot

2 Decreased a little

3 Stayed about the same

4 Increased a little

5 Increased a lot

6 Too early to tell (e.g., haven‘t seen an energy bill yet) [SKIP TO SO5]

SO4 Using a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 is not at all satisfied and 10 is very satisfied, how

satisfied are you with the energy savings you have seen after participating in the Recycling

Program?

SO5 Have you participated in any other energy efficiency programs offered by National Grid?

1 Yes

2 No


C-20


SO6 [IF SO5 = 1] Which programs?

1 Residential Heating and Water Heating program

2 Energy Star Programmable Thermostat Rebate Program

3 Energy Star Window Rebate Program

4 Other [SPECIFY]

E1 I am going to read a list of the different aspects of the Recycling Program to you. Using a

scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is not at all satisfied and 10 is very satisfied, please tell me how

satisfied you were with the . . . ? [READ AND ROTATE LIST]

A The process of scheduling a pick up

B The amount of the rebate you received

C [IF RP3 AND FB3 <> DK] Amount of time it took to receive the rebate

F Pick up occurring when it was scheduled to occur

G Pick up staff‘s respect for your property

H Courteousness of the pick-up staff

I How clearly the program‘s requirements and processes were explained to you

E2 [For each item in E1 rated <7] You said you were less than satisfied with [insert E1 item].

Why do you say that?

[OPEN ENDED RESPONSES]

E3 How did you initially sign up for the program? Did you sign up over the phone with a toll-

free number, did you sign up online, or did you sign up some other way?

1 Over the phone

2 Signed up online

3 Some other way [SPECIFY]

E9 How much time elapsed between when you called to schedule an appointment and when

your appliance was picked up?

____days

E10 Using a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all satisfied and 10 is very satisfied how

would you rate your overall satisfaction with the Recycling Program?

[RECORD NUMBER]

E11 [IF E10 <7] You indicated that you were less than satisfied overall. What are the main

reasons you were not satisfied?

[RECORD RESPONSES; MULTIPLE RESPONSES ALLOWED]

Experience and Satisfaction With The Program


C-21


E12 What changes to the program, if any, would you recommend?


E13 Would you recommend the Recycling Program to others?

1 Yes

2 No

3 Don‘t know

E14 As a result of your involvement with the Recycling Program, would you say you are more

satisfied, just as satisfied, or less satisfied with National Grid as your energy provider?

1 More satisfied

2 Just as satisfied [SKIP TO Next Section – Energy Awareness]

3 Less satisfied

D Don‘t know [SKIP TO Next Section – Energy Awareness]

R Refused [SKIP TO Next Section – Energy Awareness]

E15 Why do you say that?


Now I‘d like to ask a series of questions regarding your household‘s energy use.

A7 Have you ever seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR label? This is a blue and white sticker

that is placed on energy efficient equipment or appliances being sold?

1 Yes

2 No [SKIP TO A11]

D DON‘T KNOW [SKIP TO A11]

A7A Do you have any ENERGY STAR equipment or appliances in your home?

1 Yes

2 No [SKIP TO A11]

D DON‘T KNOW [SKIP TO A11]

Energy Awareness


C-22


A8 What types of equipment or appliances do you have that are ENERGY STAR certified? [DO

NOT READ; INDICATE ALL THAT APPLY]

1 Refrigerator

2 Dehumidifier

3 Dishwasher

4 Clothes washer

5 Microwave

6 Light bulb

7 Thermostat

8 Furnace

9 Central air conditioner

10 Television

11 VCR or DVD player

12 Cable box top

13 Smart Power Strips

14 Computer

15 Doors

16 Windows

17 Other [SPECIFY]

A11 Using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 equals ―strongly disagree‖ and 10 equals ―strongly

agree‖, how much do you disagree or agree with the following statements? [ROTATE LIST]

____My personal contribution to energy efficiency conservation does not make a

difference

____I don‘t know what to do to make my home more energy efficient

____My family‘s comfort is more important than conserving energy

____Using energy efficient products and practices requires too much effort

____I care that my energy consumption today will have an impact on future generations

A12 Which one of the following household activities do you think uses the most energy? [READ]

1 Using the lights

2 Heating the house

3 Cooling the house

4 Using refrigerators

5 Heating the water


C-23


A14 Please tell me whether you feel the following statements are true or false.

Replacing an old refrigerator with a new Energy Star refrigerator can save the typical

household more than $100 a year.

1 True

2 False

A15

A cell phone charger that is plugged into an outlet uses electricity even when the cell

phone is not plugged into it to be charged.

1 True

2 False

A16 Which of the following, if any, have you implemented in your home? [INDICATE ALL THAT

APPLY]

1 Installed a programmable thermostat

2 Turned down your water heater temperature

3 Had an energy efficiency audit performed on your home

4 Purchased energy efficient compact fluorescent bulbs

5 Added insulation to the attic or walls

6 None

Finally, I would like to ask you a few questions to better understand your home and household.

D1 What is the main fuel you use for heating? [If gas, probe for natural gas or bottled gas]

1 Electricity

2 Natural gas

3 Bottled gas (propane)

4 Fuel oil

5 Wood or wood pellets

6 Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]

D2 What is the main fuel used by your water heater? [If gas, probe for natural gas or bottled

gas]

1 Electricity

2 Natural gas

3 Bottled gas (propane)

4 Fuel oil

5 Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]

Housing and Demographics


C-24


D3 Is this home a year-round or seasonal home?

1 Year-round

2 Seasonal

D4 Do you own this home or do you rent from a landlord?

1 Own/buying

2 Rent

D5 What type of building do you live in? Is it a…

1 Single family home

2 Duplex (two-family home)

3 Apartment

4 Resort cottage or cabin

5 Town house

6 Condominium

7 Mobile or manufactured home

8 Other [SPECIFY]

D5a [IF D5=3, 5, or 6] How many units are in your building?

1 2 to 4

2 5 to 10

3 11 to 25

4 26 to 50

5 More than 50

D6 How many years have you lived in this home?

____ Years

D7 Approximately how old is this building?

____ Years

D8 Which of the following best describes the square footage of your home? Do not include an

unfinished basement, attic, porch or crawlspace. [READ LIST]

1 Less than 1,000 square feet

2 1,000 to 1,500 square feet



5 More than 3,000 square feet


C-25


D9 Including yourself, how many people currently live in your home year-round?

__ Number of people

D9A How many people in your household are…

__ Less than 18 years old

__ 18-24 years old

__ 25-34 years old

__ 35-44 years old

__ 45-54 years old

__ 55-64 years old

__ 65 or older

[IF D9 <> D9A SUM, REASK]

D10 For classification purposes only, which of the following categories best describes your pre-

tax household income for 2009 including wages, salaries, pensions, social security for all

members of this household? Just stop me when I get to the right category.

[READ LIST]

1 Less than $10,000

2 $10,000 to less than $20,000

3 $20,000 to less than $30,000

4 $30,000 to less than $40,000

5 $40,000 to less than $50,000

6 $50,000 to less than $75,000

7 $75,000 to less than $100,000

8 $100,000 to less than $150,000

9 $150,000 to less than $200,000

10 $200,000 or more

D11 GENDER [RECORD, DO NOT ASK]

1 Male

2 Female

[Thank you for your time. Do you have any questions or comments?]

D-1


APPENDIX D: PARTICIPANT SURVEY COOPERATION RATE

Table D-1. Participant Cooperation Rate

16 Attempts were made to convert all soft refusals.

17 An average of 5.5 contacts per active case were made to attempt to complete the interview.

18 Number of completed surveys divided by Adjusted Sample Size.

Sample Disposition Participants

Sample Size 800

Temporarily disconnected 1

Fax/data line 0

Non-working number 1

Disconnected number 9

Non-household number 11

Ineligible - does not recall participation 5

Ineligible - deceased 2

Adjusted Sample Size 771

Hard Refusal 14

Soft Refusal16

76

Incompletes (partial interviews) 51

Unavailable for duration 6

Incapable/incoherent 5

Language barrier/non-English 2

Active17

212

Completed Surveys 405

Cooperation Rate18

52.5%

E-1


APPENDIX E: NATIONAL GRID MARKETING MATERIALS

E.1 BILL INSERT

E:. National Grid Marketing Materials

E-2


E.2 TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENT


E-3


E.3 NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT


E-4


E.4 EMAIL BLAST

national grid grid ny...the relationship between national grid and jaco is functioning well, with...

Documents